Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine Batter's Box Interactive Magazine
Many of our loyal readers read Moneyball in 2003. If you did not read it you have heard it discussed here many times. JP Ricciardi worked with Billy Beane and Paul DePodesta in Oakland, and although JP had left when Michael Lewis was writing the book, JP's philosophy is closely aligned with Oakland's front office.

Some criticisms of Moneyball suggested that Michael Lewis did not get all of his facts straight, that he embellished certain stories for dramatic effect. So what is the truth?



Paul DePodesta recently spoke at an investment conference sponsored by Legg Mason. His presentation was titled "the Science of Winning an Unfair Game". Luckily for us, the presentation and his response to some questions have been posted on the Legg Mason website. His approach to baseball is described in detail, adding to the Moneyball description. Even if you have read Moneyball this presentation has enough new material to be worth a read.

His remarks are fascinating, but it will take you a good half of an hour to get through it. Save it and read it over the weekend. If you are a scout, you might want to give it a pass! I have put some "teasers" below.

Paul talks about when he first joined the Cleveland Indians "During the course of the year we had traded for a player named Jeff Kent. I was sitting in this meeting, and one of our major league staff members who shall remain nameless who said, and I quote, "Jeff Kent has the weakest freakin' hack I have ever seen. So what did we do as a front office? We went ahead and traded Jeff Kent a couple weeks later. Over the course of the next four years, we got to sit and watch Jeff Kent become the most prolific offensive second baseman in the entire game."

Paul also references Bill Lee's comment "In baseball, you're supposed to sit on your ass, spit tobacco, and nod at stupid things."

Another area of controversy was the famous Moneyball draft. A lot of observers have heaped scorn on the draft. Paul defends it "So we took this draft that we had in 2002, the Money Ball draft, and a year later we went through every single team, their top 10 rounds, and figured out how many of those players just one year later were performing at an above-average level for a minor league team. This is just one year after the draft, these are guys we all spent a lot of money on, and how many of them are actually performing at an above-average level? What we found was that the industry average was just over 20%, about 1 in 5 guys. One year later, we're talking low minor leagues, and it's still a long shot for those guys to get to the big leagues. There was one other team just over 30%, and we weighed in right at about 65%."



The Science of Winning an Unfair Game | 40 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
_Matthew E - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 03:18 PM EST (#78475) #
How'd the Jays' draftees do that year? I thought I remembered them being pretty good.
Pistol - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 03:26 PM EST (#78476) #
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/draft/bluejays02.html
Here's the first 10 rounds for the Jays in 2002:

1. Russ Adams, ss, U. of North Carolina.
2. David Bush, rhp, Wake Forest U.
3. Justin Maureau, lhp, Wichita State U.
4. Adam Peterson, rhp, Wichita State U.
5. Chad Pleiness, rhp, Central Michigan U.
6. Jason Perry, of, Georgia Tech.
7. Brian Grant, rhp, C.B. Aycock HS, Goldsboro, N.C.
8. Chris Leonard, lhp, Miami (Ohio) U.
9. Russell Savickas, rhp, Johnston (R.I.) HS.
10. Eric Arnold, 2b, Rice U.
robertdudek - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 03:46 PM EST (#78477) #
DePodesta ought to know that that isn't the standard the Oakland 2002 draft will or should be judged by. The first thing to consider is the large number of high draft picks Oakland had (7 out of the first 39).

One of those players (Joe Blanton) is on track to be a quality major league player. The top pick, Nick Swisher, has been a huge disappointment in my book - far more of an underachiever so far than the guy taken two slots ahead of him (Russ Adams), and sometimes maligned in these parts.

Jeremy Brown, the litmus test for the "DePodesta" draft, has done well given scouts' expectations, but there are questions about whether he'll ever handle the defensive aspect of catching. Intruguing, but we'll have to wait.

McCurdy, Teahen and Obenchain look like flops and Ben Fritz has a shot at a big league job. The A's paid out over $7.5 million in signing bonuses to those seven players; only Brown was paid significantly less than players chosen in comparable draft pick slots. One would expect college picks to get to AA and AAA relatively quickly, but none of these guys (except Brown) have had success above A ball yet.

Here's a list of guys other teams chose in the #17 to #40 slots:

#19 James Loney, #27 Sergio Santos, #17 Cole Hamels, #31 Greg Miller,

College players Jeremy Reed, David Bush and Jesse Crain were taken in the #50-#61 range.
Mike Green - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:18 PM EST (#78478) #
What has been most impressive about the A's under Beane/dePodesta has been the development of their pitchers. I am very impressed with Rick Peterson's work as pitching coach using the sophisticated biomechanical evaluation facilities in Birmingham. Peterson vetted all pitching draft picks using video. It will be worth watching how the A's organization progresses now that Peterson is working for the Mets.
_R Billie - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:19 PM EST (#78479) #
Three of the top four picks from 2002 have a good chance of making the majors either this year or next year. Justin Maureau got hurt and still might do better and Baseball America thought Pleiness should have been better than he showed. Jason Perry was part of a trade to get John-Ford Griffin and Chris Leonard was at one time a possible first round pick who is recovering from Tommy John surgery.

There isn't really a star among the bunch but the Jays should be able to get at least two or three useful players out of this batch. The 2003 batch went better in the early going and maybe the process will be stronger going forward. They'll have a couple of extra early picks to help prop up the 2004 draft.
_Chico - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:25 PM EST (#78480) #
Michael Lewis supposedly is working on a Sports Illustrated article chronicling the reaction to Moneyball. Also, there is a book coming out in March/April, Chasing Steinbrenner (on Amazon.com), where the author followed around J.P. last season.
_Matthew E - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:35 PM EST (#78481) #
Also, there is a book coming out in March/April, Chasing Steinbrenner (on Amazon.com), where the author followed around J.P. last season.

I am so there!
_Wildrose - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:47 PM EST (#78482) #
Great title, here's the link. I can hardly wait to hear what Joe Morgan thinks of the book.
_Steve Z - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:52 PM EST (#78483) #
I guess he followed J.P. and Theo. Here's a description.
_Steve Z - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 04:57 PM EST (#78484) #
Bradford's a sports columnist for the Lowell Sun (one of the many New England papers that covers the Sox 24/7).
_SportsmanTO - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:06 PM EST (#78485) #
Well as for the moneyball idea I prefer a mix of scouting and stats which is more what JP is doing then what the A's have done under Beane. Unless i'm wrong of course then i'll take back that comment. Nonetheless I like to have a good mix of toolsy players and guys who come out of college with good stats etc etc.

As for this book.....Looks like i've got something to read this spring!
Pepper Moffatt - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:12 PM EST (#78486) #
http://economics.about.com
RE: The 70% vs. 30% vs. 20%

The largest problem with that "analysis" by DePodesta is that they're drafting players by a certain set of criteria, then two years later they're judging all players based on the same set of criteria as their draft!

The A's selected guys who get on base a lot and pitchers with a good K/BB rate, coz they have a theory those are the guys with the best chance to make the majors. Sure enough, they look at their guys 2 years later, and they're still well above average in those categories. Who'd thunk it?

Overall it was a great talk. I like the part about the height of CEOs. :)

Cheers,

Mike
_ntr Richard Gri - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 05:56 PM EST (#78487) #
There is a book coming out in March/April, "Chasing Steinbrenner", where the author followed around J.P. last season.

Oh my gosh, dreams do come true. This can't get any easier, the columns will practically write themselves.
Craig B - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:15 PM EST (#78488) #
No, Mike, they're not. They're using a series of proprietary metrics which they think give a truer picture of contribution to winning than traditional ones do. It's not just getting on base and K/BB ratio - though I'm sure that that sort of thing weighs heavily on their minds. After all, getting on base and controlling the strike zone are the two most important skills in baseball.

Who'd thunk it?

Traditional baseball people, that's who (which is sort of the point). A player's performance, remember, isn't supposed (on the traditional scouting model) to have anything to do with his future performance. A player's future performance is only a product of his "tools".

ntr Richard Griffin

Just this once, I'm leaving a comment like this up, so I can make this point. Leave this Primer BS over at Primer. Don't bring it here, it'll get deleted.
_Oggman - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:29 PM EST (#78489) #
Our manager now, Ken Macha, loves our second baseman Mark Ellis. Mark Ellis is a good player, he plays hard, and he plays every day. But he didn't have a very good offensive year this year, yet Ken Macha kept putting him in the lineup every day. It even got to the point late in the year where he started hitting him leadoff. We finally went to Ken and said, "We like Ellis too, but he probably doesn't need to be hitting leadoff, and getting all these at-bats." And his comment to us was, "Ellis is a clutch hitter."

Sure doesn't make Macha sound too smart. Especially what happens in the next paragraph (I'll let you read it)

This is a very cool read.
Pepper Moffatt - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 06:49 PM EST (#78490) #
http://economics.about.com
No, Mike, they're not.

Okay, it was a *vast* oversimplification. But the point remains; if you draft guys on a certain set of criteria (whatever that criteria is), then you rank the various teams drafts on the exact same set of criteria, of course you're going to score well on that metric.

That being said, I think they did an excellent job with their draft.

Cheers,

Mike
_NIck - Friday, February 06 2004 @ 10:49 PM EST (#78491) #
I found this comment from DePodesta interesting:

"I thought the first thing we have to do is to figure out "What are we going to measure, and how are we going to measure it?" The first one was critical, because for so long we just assumed that batting average and on-base and home runs and runs batted in were important."

So, does he think on base percentage is being overrated? Is he using a completely different system of evaluation where results like getting on base or hitting a single are ignored and rather looking far more granularly at things like pitches taken and such things? I know DePodesta certainly does place a high value on things like numbers of pitches taken (odd Scott Hatteberg contract, anyone?), but does this mean he really isn't paying attention to, say, something we consider as fundamentally useful as OBP?

I sure hope Keith is as innovatively minded.
_BirdWatcher - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 12:15 AM EST (#78492) #
Nick, I don't think DeP's emphasis on performance measurement is like the hunt for the holy grail, where there is some set of "true" performance indicators out there just waiting to be discovered. Instead, I think the point is he wants to measure things which he can be reasonably certain are predictable and repeatable and, therefore, in some sense, within management's discretion to control, whether we're talking about managing draft selections or managing players on the field.

The fundamental problem, as pointed out by DeP, is sample size. That is, you can look at singles or OBA or OPS or whatever but, except perhaps for the very elite players, you have no idea whether you're looking at repeatable, predictable results or just statistical noise. If you accept the statistical argument that you need 5 years of data to figure out "true" performance(amounting to 3000 PA or 1000 IPs), and if it's agreed players peak in the 28/29-30/31 period, then precisely when you have enough info finally to be confident about a player's perfomance, they are entering their decline phase - and, again, you have no basis for projecting the rate of that decline !!!

The fallback, then, except perhaps for the top 5-10% elite, is to rely on indicators which are more predictable, such as BB's for hitters anfd K's for pitchers. What this leads to is searching out bat control freaks who, say, can take 80 walks in 600 PA and you cross your fingers they'll at least scrape by with a .250 BA, giving you a .350 OBP plus a possible upside surprise if the guy turns out to be a real hitter( sort of like buying a low PE stock). For pitchers, I guess that leads you to strikeout artists (even if their control is not so great), and you might even consider a low-K guy so long as he exhibits exceptional control (Mr. Towers?). Either way, their K/BB ratio will likely be greater than 2.0, meaning they're keeping balls-in-plate at a reasonable level - but I better stop here because that's a whole other discussion !
Gitz - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 12:26 AM EST (#78493) #
Not to belabor the point here, but if a team is going to pay a first baseman $2.5 million to rank amongst the league leaders in number of pitches taken while putting up a .253/.342/.353 line, then that team is in trouble.

I have no doubt that Keith Law is innovative -- which means that, hopefully, he recognizes that the real value of a Scott-Hatteberg-type player would be as a hitting coach (or manager), where his outstanding approach to each at-bat could be absorbed by people with more physical skills than he has. I call this kind of player "Eric Chavez."

It's all well and good to have the kind of discipline Hattberg has, but for the love of Ford the A's cannot keep running a first baseman out there who slugs at a .353 clip. This was a bad move by the A's, and no amount of "Beane knows something we don't" will change it. This is what some people said about Chris Singleton, this is what some people said about Jeremy Fikac (including me), this is what some people said about Mark Johnson, etc. People, even smart ones such as Beane and DePodesta, make mistakes, and re-upping Hatteberg at two years and $5 million is a mistake.
_BirdWatcher - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 01:40 AM EST (#78494) #
So, Gitz, what's your proposal - the A's go out and spend $12MM per year for a first baseman ? The point is they have a budget, and all that matters is how do you field a competitive team within that constraint.

Here are a few numbers for your consideration. To make it even tougher for poor old Mr. Hatteberg, I've taken OPS as the basis for comparison (3 year average) for the leading AL first baggers currently under contract for 2004.

..............2004 Salary......OBP+SA......$Cost per 100 pts of OPS
................($MM).........(3Yr.Avg)

Delgado.......18.5.............0.970............19.07
Giambi........12.4.............1.036............11.97
Sweeney.......11.0.............0.921............11.94
Konerko........8.0.............0.816.............9.80
Olerud.........7.7.............0.842.............9.14
Martinez.......7.5.............0.798.............9.40
Palmeiro.......4.0.............0.927.............4.31
Hatteberg......2.5.............0.741.............3.38

So, poor old Scott looks like pretty good value for the money. Also, it's worth noting the unit costs for Olerud, Martinez and Palmeiro are probably understated since none of these guys are likely to match their historical OPS performance in 2004.
_Shane - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 02:11 AM EST (#78495) #
...but for the love of Ford the A's cannot keep running a first baseman out there who slugs at a .353 clip. This was a bad move by the A's, and no amount of "Beane knows something we don't" will change it...People, even smart ones such as Beane and DePodesta, make mistakes,

Who thought the extension made sense?

You didn't, I didn't, Neyer didn't, Bauxites didn't, Primerites didn't and so on...If this is a "mistake", it's not your usual "Team rushes to sign free-agent to extension deal" mistake. Who the (explitive) knows why they re-signed this guy? But whatever the reason, it was obviously well thought out, and whatever formula they figured his worth with, it doesn't compute with what us humans use, as we see Scott Hatteberg too suck.

(Does that make sense?)

Truly, a weird signing.
Gitz - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 04:49 AM EST (#78496) #
Of course I would love the A's to spend $12 million on a first baseman!

My point -- again -- is that we hear over and over and over again, especially from Baseball Prospectus, how easy it is to find first-basemen types in the minors, who can be had for the major-league minimum or slightly more and who can slug over .400. A small-market team spending $2.5 million on a below replacement-level player is simply not good business.

And Shane is right, in part, that most people thought the signing was bizarre. I would amend that to "some" people. A trivial distinction? Sure. But many of the some (huh?) were defending it with the "Beane knows something" logic.

I do like Hatteberg as a person -- from all indications he's bright, articulate, and is a good guy -- and I love his approach to the plate. I don't like my first baseman slugging at .353. That's not worth $2.5 million.
_John Neary - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 09:23 AM EST (#78497) #
BirdWatcher,

Cost per 100 points of OPS is not a useful metric. Let's imagine that we have a replacement level first baseman whose batting line last year was .276/.309/.434, with 1.5 RARP in 430 PA. Call him "Randall Simon" for convenience. You shouldn't have to pay him more than $300K per season. So his cost/(100 OPS) is 0.404 -- easily better than any of the players on your list.

The point is that you have to consider marginal cost per marginal contribution. A better metric would be (cost minus minimum salary) / (RARP). Using $300 K as minimum salary, here's the revised version of your table

Player Marginal cost per marginal contribution
Delgado 0.26
Giambi 0.21
Sweeney 0.54
Konerko -2.3
Olerud 0.38
Martinez 0.51
Palmeiro 0.13
Hatteberg 0.46
AVERAGE 0.33

Now, you can argue about where the replacement level bar should be set, but according to BP's numbers Hatteberg was a worse deal than Delgado, *Giambi*, Olerud, and Palmeiro.

John
_Jim - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST (#78498) #
I think that the incessant complaints on the Hatteburg deal are getting a bit old. Sure, he's overpaid. It's not a great extension. Fine, we all know that. They still were up 2-0 in the playoffs and had 2 players who didn't touch home plate. If I win $500 at the casino playing blackjack, do they close the tables for the rest of the night?

If the Dodgers get DePodesta they are going to be a major force in the National League. There isn't a doubt about it in my mind.
_John Neary - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 12:17 PM EST (#78499) #
Jim,

I take your point. The problem is one of perception. There is one group of people who are tired of what they see as reflexive praise of everything that Beane et al do. There is another group of people who are tired of what they see as excessive attention to the rare mistakes that Beane et al make. Each group is to a certain extent guilty of caricaturing the other.

John
_Jim - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 12:57 PM EST (#78500) #
I've got no problem with talking about his mistakes. It's just the Hatteburg one has been drilled into the ground (it seems like almost everyone agrees - bad extension). They have made others. I just think that even for a small market team - overpaying isn't the biggest sin in the world. I'd rather overpay Hatteburg then say trade away Jeff Bagwell.

I do really like Beane, Riccardi, DePodesta - the whole stable of these types of GMs. However, I don't have any problems looking for the things that they have done wrong. I think DePodesta is taking way to much credit for the 'Moneyball' draft. I don't think as highly of it as he seems to.
_BirdWatcher - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 02:05 PM EST (#78501) #
OK, OK - we've beat this one to death ! But another way to look at it is in terms of Unit Cost per Win Share (and, Mr. Neary, if I understand WS, it is designed to measure marginal contribution). So, here goes, based on 2003 WS:

Player............WS..........Unit Cost ($'000 per 2003 WS)

Delgado...........32.................578
Giambi............28.................443
Sweeney...........15.................733
Konerko............4................2000
Olerud............15.................513
Martinez..........11.................681
Hatteberg.........14.................178
Palmeiro..........19.................210
Average...........17.................526

Some may argue that the Konerko number is not representative because he had an "off" season but, of course, this is precisely the situation the A's are trying to avoid by signing predictable plodders like Hatteberg.
_John Neary - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 03:40 PM EST (#78502) #
BirdWatcher,

I don't believe that Win Shares measure performance relative to replacement level -- is it possible to have negative Win Shares?

Anyway, I don't want to drag the Hatteberg debate out any more than you guys do. He's not being paid a great deal of money, so it's not like we're talking about Darren Dreifort here. Whether you think he's worth his contract or not, you're only talking about a few million bucks, as Jirn points out.

John
_S.K. - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 05:50 PM EST (#78503) #
Win Shares measures contribution starting at absolute zero, so it is not as good as RARP for this argument. It's better than OPS, though.
_Jim - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 05:59 PM EST (#78504) #
I think one of the assumptions that isn't 'quite' right is what a replacement player costs. While I think metrics like VORP are correct in what a replacement player level is, it seems that those types of players cost from $500k-$1MM.

I know that many of the statistical observers think that you can always replace with your AAAA level player at 300k and not miss a beat. It doesn't seem that MLB GM's agree (even forward thinking organizations like Oakland - Karros, Eric), that they can be replaced at the league minimum.

Baseball is an odd duck. It's not a casino. They don't award 100 championships a year. There is only one, and even with the odds tilted in their favor the house doesn't always win. Sometimes a team like Florida who might not have the best process in the world (does anyone else laugh when they see Jeff Torborg on Golden Tee machines?), still manages to win the World Series.

I love the Prospectus and Sabrmetric line of thinking, but sometimes the gnashing of teeth over something as umimportant as overpaying Scott Hatteburg by a few hundred thousand dollars is laughable.

PS - I think that Win Shares do try to measure marginal wins. They just have a very low replacement level.
_Mick - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 07:36 PM EST (#78505) #
I call this kind of player "Eric Chavez."

Gitz, good to see you've moved on from mourning the losses of Lilly and Singleton. Is Chavez your designated whipping boy this year?

I had my money on Mark Ellis ...
_Rob - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 10:52 PM EST (#78506) #
So who is our whipping boy on the Fighting Jays? Woody?
Gitz - Saturday, February 07 2004 @ 11:29 PM EST (#78507) #
Nah, I like Chavez too much to thrash him. I just wish he would add one walk or so per week, or, failing that, stop swinging at the first pitch every time. Man, put Hatteberg's smarts with Chavez's talent -- then we're talking. So I'll probably hack on Kielty too much, because he won't meet even the modest expectations some people have for him. Durazo is always around, of course, but I honestly don't know how he'll do this year. I was sure he'd disappoint last year (non-walking numbers, but this year's a blank. I'll for sure be nicer to Hatteberg, because he was the only player on the team who kept his game the same when the playoffs rolled around. (Well, that's not true; T-Long kept to his usual game.) Plus Hatte's a marginal, at best, fantasy talent anyway, so he shouldn't get much ink.

And, yeah, who is the Jays whipping boy? Woodward is a good option, but how about Hudson? There seems to be some angst regarding him, too. Of course, I hope to heck it won't be Ted Lilly, but that's where my money is. Fortunately I'm poor, and fortunately I've been wrong before; let's hope I am again.
_S.K. - Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 12:41 AM EST (#78508) #
Really? I think people seem pretty high on Hudson. My money's on Woodward, Hinske, or whichever of Delgado or Halladay gets off to a less-than-stellar start.

Griffin will of course jump all over Batista, Lilly, or Closer X if any of them struggle in the early going (I don't think anyone can get mad at Hentgen, the guy's just too nice).
_Dean - Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 03:51 PM EST (#78509) #
Hi, I'm new to the box. I spend a fair bit of time over at fanhome though. I wanted to put these relative comparisons of first basemen into a context that I think is being missed, and that is the farm system. it seems to me that first base is asort of funnel for players who gradually get pushed out of positions that are tougher to play. as such it should be relatively easy to find better then league average offensive players to play first. I know that Evan this is relative, given that evey team faces this same situation.. but it seems to me to be the mark of a bad farm system, if said farm system can't produce at least one good offensive first baseman every couple of years. It seems to me to be a question of what option are availableto a team such as Oakland not strictly the amount of dollars spent per whatever unit of production is used as a measurement.for example I know that Hatty is a more cost effective first basemen then Delgado . but I still simply believe that a team can and should get more production out of firstbase.

It's kind of like that weird ,"fungability of position players".statement that Peter Gammons keeps making, it's true but only in a limited context after all position players contribute more to winshare then do pitchers generally, but the number of truely good pitchers is relatively small. Hence through this distortion pitchers seem more valuable. the question is how true is this, really?

is Hatty a good fit just because he's really cheap or should the A's have had a guy waiting in the wings to take over such a "fungable" position also it might make some sence to compare Hatty to players like David Ortis and Billl Millar rather then guys like Delgado..

Here's an interesting Question .what do the jays do If they can't or are unwilling to sign Delgado

A, Does JFG move over to first

B,Does hinskie, with hill taking over at third

C , what about phelps

D Or do the Jays go out and sign an ortis type for a few million

any of these solutins IMO would be better then Hatty what are your thoughts?
_A - Sunday, February 08 2004 @ 11:53 PM EST (#78510) #
I wish I could find it in the archives but notwithstanding Hatteberg, haven't we had this debate at least twice?
_Matt - Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 12:07 PM EST (#78511) #
Hi, I just stumbled on this site today. Then I went searching for a transcript of the speech made by Depodesta at the Legg Mason conference, but the couple links I found don't work. Can anyone provide me a link to a transcript of his speech? Thank you very much.
Pistol - Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 12:59 PM EST (#78512) #
Hi, I just stumbled on this site today. Then I went searching for a transcript of the speech made by Depodesta at the Legg Mason conference, but the couple links I found don't work.

Apparently the Dodgers and/or PD asked that they be taken down. Neyer wrote about it in his column earlier this week.
_Steve Z - Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 10:30 PM EST (#78513) #
I printed the entire article/speech up ...for bed-time (or bathroom) reading! I could transcribe it... or I can fax you my copy. I've left my email above.
_Steve Z - Wednesday, February 18 2004 @ 10:32 PM EST (#78514) #
Or alternatively, just take the cached version!
The Science of Winning an Unfair Game | 40 comments | Create New Account
The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.