GregAlso

Thanks Geoff! Jerry is very interesting to talk stats with every time. His thought patterns about statistics really interest me. I have so many questions for him.

A very interesting and balanced article

Yes they are compulsive liars but your statement about when he started to drink is also a major assumption. He is a very famous addict. If he was buying alcohol compulsively it would've been in the news by now, someone he bought from would've come forward for money. Something is going on but all these assumptions are ridiculous.

"Buyout clauses" in baseball are known as team option years with a buyout. This would've been reported initially.

I have over 10 years of working with addicts myself. We can all pull out expertise. This is still all based on assumptions and the bias of those on this site. Many things color that bias. Additionally initial assumptions are being added to and whole conspiracies are being created.

That makes a lot of sense. Any addict knows relying on your spouse to be your accountability partner is a recipe for disaster. That's why there are programs like Al-Anon for spouses and family members. Spouses tend to want to save their significant other but they often do the absolutely wrong thing because of their enmeshment with the addict. This is a tough lesson.

All those asking about contract clauses about drugs of abuse. As I understand drugs of abuse, teams cannot put clauses in contracts about that because it is covered in the CBA. The JDA is meant to be the clause that protects owners against players that abuse drugs. This applies to PEDs as well, as I understand it anyway.

By the way, here is what those who really know Josh Say about if he is accountable or not: "Angels players genuinely love Hamilton as a person, because he's accountable, wholesome, playful and perpetually trying to do the right thing. But some have grown weary of all that comes with Hamilton as a baseball player, a lot of which is merely the product of his circumstance"

Ok, all this hate for Josh is all based on assumptions. We don't know if he is taking responsibility or not. He had nothing to do with the lawyers of MLBPA and how they argued his case. The conspiracy theory cooked up in this thread is pure speculation without one shred of evidence. Josh was interviewed and spent the rest of the time in Texas. The lawyers argued the case and they were from MLBPA who defends Josh in order to defend all players. We have absolutely no idea if Josh is taking responsibility or not because he hasn't said ANYTHING. People are merely speculating on assumptions and silence. It's a freaking witch hunt in here. The accountability partner thing interests me the most. Did Josh let him go or was it the Angels who didn't like him hanging around the team? It obviously didn't work out but is this one of the possible things that caused problems between him and the FO? Lastly, people mentioned the celebration and this is a historical reminder, Josh never joined in the champaign celebrations in Texas. They used Ginger Ale so he could join in with them. Many members of AA won't even use mouthwash with Alcohol in it so they don't even get any in their mouth. Josh not celebrating with champaign is nothing new. He never did that in Texas either.

You're welcome Chuck and it looks like this piece will get buried today because of the news about Josh & Ervin. Oh well at least a few people will read it. Lol

"An a hole and a jerk"? How do you figure? I've watched him sit for hours in Diablo Stadium signing for any and everyone. He did it everyday he could on his own time when every other player had left. He made some stupid decisions but that doesn't make an a hole or a jerk.

Inside, it is ashame it is being lost in this news cycle but it's probably the way Pujols would've prefered it.

This is pretty freaking awesome! Love the type of person Albert is.

All of you talking about him not testing positive realize cocaine only stays in urine and blood for about 3 days. The body processes it quickly and it is very possible that if the tests where once a week or further spread out in the offseason that it would not produce a positive test. Supposedly he did this sometime near the Super Bowl and therefore his spring tests would've never been positive for cocaine.

Picking up the options is what needs to be done. As a lame duck he could make decisions better for the short term and not the long term. Better to confirm him then leave it open. Pick up the options. Not about losing him, it's about keeping him long term.

2 years remaining?

Lol, good point laagamer. Written when we were 2 games back and it seemed like the A's would never lose. Also written so 'the realist' among us wouldn't attack it as a "too rosey presentation of the team." Glad you enjoyed it.

Remember Trout doesn't just score when Albert hits the HR. Any xtra base hit from Albert has a very good chance of scoring Trout from first. 50% chance to score from first on a double.

I pass it along that some of you MIGHT be able to read it and discuss it. You could also read the first couple of paragraphs without a subscription. I realize your both just trolling me now. What I also thought was a thoughtful discussion about the info available might occur but not outright dismissal of the info with a "he obviously never played baseball" argument. That is a pathetic response by people acting like junior high schoolers. But you obviously just defaulted to your own level as well. Troll I let you live in your ignorance as you dismiss data as not helpful. You probably think pitcher wins define a great pitcher, fielding % tells you who the best defenders are, and RBIs means a hitter is the MVP. Buff said.

I realize you can't read the data behind the conclusions but you can read the conclusion. It does not say that coaches are unnecessary, as some here have suggested it means. That is what I'm responding to. For example: Nothing in the conclusion or what I said could possibly mean this. This type of knee jerk reaction to data is stupid. The article simply states that they don't make a big difference at this level. There are no real guru coaches worth much more than any other. I know you can't see how he got to his final conclusion but you can at least respond to the ACTUAL conclusion and not something made up in your own mind. Intelligent conversation comes from at least listening/reading and comprehending first.

Exactly Brandon. The article pretty much says that and so does the data. The rest of you overreact and freak out. The data simply states that one guy over another isn't a big deal not that they should not exist. Some people on here don't seem to have common sense and don't read stuff. I posted the entire conclusion, a whole paragraph, and you can't be bothered to read and understand that. Seriously, do you just like to overreact? The point is this: Butcher vs Duncan isn't that big of a difference, according to the numbers and in a general sense. If the players feel the coach is helping them then that is about all you can ask. The rest is a crap shoot and entirely dependent on the player not the coach. The differences between one major league hitting/pitching coach and another is basically preference not performance.

This article, for those who don't have the subscription, isn't just opinion. He took a lot of data. He did his best to factor out random variation and the data showed no hitting or pitching coach in the last 20 years had any consistent positive influence on his hitters or pitchers in any particular stat. You all can have opinions but the stats show no coach has no consistent positive or negative effects on the players.

Here is an interesting article on the effect of coaching on hitters & pitchers. It is numbers heavy. If you have a baseball prospectus subscription enjoy. http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=23626 Conclusion: "The one thing that we can take from these findings is that we need to be careful about the pitching (or hitting coach) who gets the “genius” tag after a couple of his pitchers (or hitters) have a good year. He might very well be a genius, but these results suggest that going forward, the chances that he’ll repeat that work are random. We need to get away from the auteur model of coaching (and film-making). Pulp Fiction was a wonderful movie, and Quentin Tarantino had a lot to do with it, but to credit only him for the movie would be a mistake. In the same way, when a hitter (or pitcher) does emerge, we can’t just reflexively give all the credit to his pitching coach and assume that past performance is indicative of future results. There was untapped potential there, and perhaps a very specific set of circumstances that allowed the hitting coach, purposefully or not, to unlock it. Thus, the coach’s results are primed for regression. Unfortunately, that makes it really hard to answer the question, “Who is the best hitting coach?” The answer might just be “the one who happens to be in the right place at the right time.”" Something to remember when everyone believed a coach is the best or the worst.

http://regressing.deadspin.com/what-happened-to-mike-trouts-swing-1578978948?utm_campaign=socialflow_deadspin_twitter&utm_source=deadspin_twitter&utm_medium=socialflow Here is a good article breaking down the subtle changes in Trout's swing and adjustments that seem to effecting him. Definently worth the read.

GregAlso +2 (friend Saul [pitched last year] & Wife Noelle)