12 Running Shoes of Christmas

Submitted by Penny Lane on 12/13/12 2:57pm
Women's running shoes for trails, tracks and races

Asics | $110

These hot pink and purple kicks are part of Asics' Gel-Neo33 collection, which combines a dual density midsole system

with a stable outsole to offer runners with a lightweight, natural pair of shoes.

Pearl Izumi | $130

Think comfort, perfect fit, cushioning and stability; a happy medium between a runner and their turf. 

Pearl Izumi specializes in cycling, which gives their running merchandise a new spin and distinction from other brands. 

Brooks | $100

Brooks' PureDrift collection is the next best thing to running barefoot. 

Its lightweight construction allows feet to flex in their grooves without experiencing road burn.

Newton | $149

This is your go-to shoe for everyday runs on all types of terrain: roads, urban trails and technical trails with elevation gain. 

These trainers offer responsive cushioning, a stable platform and lightweight materials.

Nike | $110

These super bright, rad kicks are not only designed for comfort and performance,

but runners can also order them exactly as they like, right down to the colors and key words or names to the tongue tops.

New Balance | $95

These svelte shoes are designed for trail running and can be worn with or without socks. 

Their design helps improve gait issues and are especially beneficial for neutral runners.

New Balance |$30

Perfect for competitive cross country events, the New Balance 700 secures feet as they twist and turn and a flexible sole

grips unpredictable terrain. A rubber outersole offers longevity while the upper mesh material offers comfort and support.

Nike | $130

Nike's Free collection is designed to allow feet to move freely and naturally, 

which initiates more muscle activity with a lighter, more flexible shoe.

Mizuno | $105

These shoes are built for speed and intended for sprinters and short distances. Mizuno's midsole technology directs impact away

from the feet while the sole of the shoe creates a smooth, rocking transition from heel to toe.

Nike | $160

The Nike Lunar Spider midsole gives runners endless support through superb cushioning and stable soles.  

The durable foam core is lightweight and springy for fast response and support.

Reebok | $80

Reebok's ZigNano Fly 2 design features a unique zig zag sole for effective cushioning when competing or training. 

The shoes' traction allows runners to explore various terrain and its mesh provides comfort, fit and durability.

Asics | $120

Remarkably comfortable platform for a great, everyday training shoe. 

Especially supportive for those with normal arches and flat feet.

2012 Spectometer Hitting Leaderboards -- "Production Percentage"

Submitted by Spectator on 12/13/12 2:31pm
Prospect hitter lists continue

The leaderboard series continues.

Once again, a recap of the ground rules:

  • Ages 26 and over are considered "post-prospect" (for hitters), and are not counted (sorry Luis Rodriguez for plate skills and Joseph Dunigan for slugging).
  • A season needs at least 100 plate appearances to count.  Seasons between 50 and 99 PAs I will look at, and might note, but they won't go on the leaderboard.
  • Seasons that are entirely in foreign leagues don't count.  Mixed seasons with some foreign and some domestic stats I will count (but note with a caveat).  Good news for Gaby Guerrero fans (of which I am one).
  • The normal age-arc I use is Rookie/Short Season: 19 ... Low-A: 20 ... High-A: 21 ... AA: 22 ... AAA: 23.  A guy who is younger than age-arc is noted in green.   One year older than normal age-arc is not noted, but two years or more older earns an "age caveat" and is noted in blue.
  • Ages are from baseball-reference.com "age season" (age as of midnight on June 30 of the season).

***

Stat:  Production Percentage

Formula: (XBH + BB)/PA (expressed as a percent)

Interpretive rule of thumb:  This stat is more "raw" than the more "sophisticated" Plausibility Index, but it gives a good idea of which hitters are producing at the plate.  I've found that almost all successful major league hitters had a Production Percentage of 19% or higher against minor league pitching.  It's not as useful for relative rankings (since it devalues HR), but it's good for a "yes/no" kind of analysis.  If a guy is way below 19%, then he may not be as good as he appears (success may be based on getting a lot of singles).

All hitters:

  1. Mike Zunino (21): 26.3%
  2. Marcus Littlewood (20): 24.3%
  3. Rich Poythress (24): 23.6%
  4. Nate Tenbrink (25): 23.3%
  5. Isaiah Yates (17): 23.2%
  6. Joe DeCarlo (18): 22.4%
  7. Jabari Henry (21): 22.0%
  8. Kevin Rivers (23): 21.3%
  9. Jabari Blash (22): 21.2%
  10. Dario Pizzano (21): 21.2%
  11. Brad Miller (22): 21.2%
  12. Ji-Man Choi (21): 21.1%
  13. Dennis Raben (24): 20.8%
  14. Gabrial Franca (18): 20.6%
  15. Johermyn Chavez (23): 20.5%

***

Below age-arc hitters:

  1. Isaiah Yates (17): 23.2%
  2. Joe DeCarlo (18): 22.4%
  3. Gabrial Franca (18): 20.6%
  4. Timmy Lopes (18): 18.8%
  5. Nick Franklin (21): 18.7%

***

Glove-position hitters:

  1. Mike Zunino -- C (21): 26.3%
  2. Marcus Littlewood -- C (20): 24.3%
  3. Isaiah Yates -- CF (17): 23.2%
  4. Jabari Henry -- CF (21): 22.0%
  5. Brad Miller -- SS (22): 21.2%

***

Top 15 with age-caveat hitters excluded:

  1. Mike Zunino (21): 26.3%
  2. Marcus Littlewood (20): 24.3%
  3. Isaiah Yates (17): 23.2%
  4. Joe DeCarlo (18): 22.4%
  5. Brad Miller (22): 21.2%
  6. Ji-Man Choi (21): 21.1%
  7. Gabrial Franca (18): 20.6%
  8. Johermyn Chavez (23): 20.5%
  9. Christian Charmichel (20): 19.0%
  10. Timmy Lopes (18): 18.8%
  11. Nick Franklin (21): 18.7%
  12. Gabriel Guerrero (18): 18.7% (includes some foreign stats)
  13. Jack Marder (22): 18.4%
  14. Denny Almonte (23): 17.8%
  15. Stefen Romero (23): 17.6%

***

You can see why I love the Teen Titans (Guerrero, Lopes, DeCarlo, Franca and Yates ... plus Pike and Sanchez on the mound).  They register much, much more strongly than the prior group (Castillo, Pimentel, M. Peguero, Morales and Burin, who, at this point, all look overrated).  And it's not just this category.

And Marcus Littlewood, under the radar, turned into a very interesting young hitter, with a .390 OBP after converting to catcher.

BJOL on Myers-Shields

Submitted by jemanji on 12/13/12 1:40pm
Quite a radical insight into baseball, if true

I thought you amigos would find this exchange pretty cotton-pickin' interesting.  Any holdouts on that $3 a month over there?  ;- ) 

.

=== RFox76 question at BJOL ===
 
Your thoughts on the Royals/Rays trade?
Asked by: rfox76
Answered: 12/11/2012
=== Bill James response ===
 
My local wrortes spider wrote a long column about trading "prospects" for major league players.   I was just struck by what an absurd way this was to think about the puzzle put forward by the trade.  
 
The distinction between "prospect" and "player" is a distinction that exists in your head, a distinction based on the labels that we put on players.    One is as much a player as the other.   James Shields is a player; Wil Myers is a player.    My main reaction to the trade is how silly it is to react to the trade based on drawing this imaginary line between players, thus putting one into one class and the other into the other.
 
=== Bruce question at BJOL ===
 
Why is it so "absurd" to distinguish between players who have proven the ability to be successful at the major league level and those who haven't?
Asked by: Bruce
Answered: 12/12/2012
=== Bill James response ===
 
Proven, to who?    Wil Myers has proven to my satisfaction that he has ability to be successful at the major league level.   I am absolutely, 100% satisfied that he does.    When you say that he has not proven this ability, then, you are talking about a distinction that exists only in your mind. ..or only in my mind; that doesn't matter, in whose mind the distinction rests.    It is absurd to divide players based on a distinction that exists only in your mind. 
 
=== Jemanji question at BJOL ===
 
Am intrigued by the implication that Wil Myers is (roughly) as good a bet to be an difference-maker in the majors as are (say) James Shields or Alex Gordon or other players who ARE difference-makers in the majors. (We presume that you're not merely stating the obvious, that Myers will get 3000 AB's in the bigs).
 
I'm a big believer in MLE projections myself, and a bigger believer in 21-year-olds who rake at AAA. .... But the plot thickens with this second axiom: a few months ago you acknowledged that a prospect who had hit well in the majors for a short time had passed an important test. There are lots of AAA hotshots who turn out to have weaknesses that are exposed by ML precision (Jose Lopez was a cleanup hitter in AAA at age 20 who totalled about 6 WAR for his career). ....
 
My question: what SPECIFICALLY about Myers are you looking at, as opposed to any other 21-year-old who had a 900 OPS+ in AAA? Or are these kids IN GENERAL as valuable as ML impact players? - Thx!
Asked by: jemanji
Answered: 12/12/2012
 
=== Bill James response ===
That would depend on the generalization.     If by "these kids", you are generalizing 21-year-olds to include 22-year-olds, then it is less true.    If by "these kids" you include defensive liabilities with young center fielders, then it is less true.   If by "these kids" you're including players with an .880 OPS along with players with a .930 OPS, then it is less true.   It depends on how you generalize. 
 
.
 
=== Jemanji followup question at BJOL ===
 
Well, I pulled Jose Lopez' name out on a lark. YOU could name lots of AAA players in history, better than I could, comparable to Wil Myers who totalled less than 25 Win Shares in their careers. (And I was looking at Lopez' age 20 season, not his age 22 season. Cheney Stadium was a nightmare to hit in; Lopez could hit a ton at age 20.) - thanks.
Asked by: jemanji
Answered: 12/13/2012
 
=== Bill James response ===
I would be surprised if there is ANY player in the last 50 years genuinely comparable to Wil Myers as a minor league prospect who earned less than 25 Win Shares in his major league career.   If there is such a player, it would be an injury situation.  (!!! - jjc)
 
The Jose Lopez example is actually extremely instructive about the profound misunderstandings in this area.   If you look at Lopez, it could not possibly be any more apparent that the change in his level of hitting ability occurred at the MAJOR LEAGUE level, after he had been in the majors for five years and had just short of 3,000 plate appearances as a major league player.   In 2008--four years after the minor league season that you reference--Lopez hit .297 for the Mariners, with 41 doubles and 17 homers giving him a .764 OPS.   The season AFTER that he hit .272 with 42 doubles and 25 homers, a .766 OPS.   At the end of that season he had 2,977 major league plate appearances.    THEN he stopped hitting. ....3,000 plate appearances into his major league career, he stopped hitting.  
 
The uncertainty of projection in Lopez case occured in the middle of his major league career--yet in discussing him, you attribute this. . .you mis-attribute this. . .to his minor league/major league transition, and thus mis-attribute the uncertainty to his minor league performance.   By doing this, you both overstate the uncertainty of projection based on the minor league performance, and understate the uncertainty of projection based on the MAJOR LEAGUE performance.   This sustains you in your mistaken belief that minor league hitting stats are not reliable indicators of performance.
 
Why do you do this?  Are you a fool, or are you determined to deceive us?
 
Well, of course you are not; you are merely doing what all of us do all the time.   You have an organized way of thinking about this problem, and so your mind re-arranges the facts to be consistent with that way of thinking about the problem--even though, in truth, those facts are not AT ALL consistent with that way of thinking about the problem.   We all dislike re-thinking our assumptions.   This self-deception protects your mind from having to re-think your assumptions. 
 
=== Jemanji response ===
 
Okay.  If that's true -- and most of us trust you on a 30,000-foot-view historical judgment like this -- then that's a radical insight into the way baseball works.  You would think the Red Sox, if they understood this and other franchises didn't understand it as well, would have a colossal competitive advantage.  Thanks.
.
=== Izzy2112 question at BJOL ===
 
Just a side note on Myers: To some extent, there is a bit more certainty regarding a similar player who has played in the majors simply because we have more information. We have batted ball data and various other things for MLB players but not minor league players, making it easier to differentiate between say, a high BABIP caused partially by luck (like Andrew McCutchen or Torii Hunter this year) and a similar BABIP that was the result of a better batted ball profile (Posey or Mauer).
Asked by: izzy2112
Answered: 12/13/2012
 
=== Bill James response ===
No, there ISN'T more certainty about them.  You may choose to believe that there is, you may give me 40 reasons why there has to be, but there isn't.   This is the most important thing you could learn from me if you would stop refusing to learn it. 
 
=== TangoTiger question at BJOL ===
 
"This is the most important thing you could learn from me if you would stop refusing to learn it. " I would like to see more evidence in that case. My position is simply that every difference in context adds a layer of uncertainty. If a hitter goes from Coors to Oakland to StLouis (Holliday), or if he moves from Japan to Yankees, or if he moves from AA to MLB, all those changes in context are severe enough that it has to add a level of uncertainty. And the more severe the change in context, then the more uncertainty we have (all other things equal).
Asked by: tangotiger
Answered: 12/13/2012
 
=== Bill James response ===
I would certainly agree that there are uncertainties associated with all transitions, at the major league level or majors to minors.   A player who is in his first year on a new team--like Carl Crawford coming into Boston in 2011--is demonstrably more likely to have a catastrophic season than is a player who is playing in the same place he was playing the year before.   
 
I do NOT agree that these uncertainties are larger in going majors to minors than in going from one major league setting to another, and I would ask to see the evidence that they are larger. 
In my view, I have been providing evidence for my position constantly for 30 years, and the world and the sabermetric community have been explaining it away and refusing to learn for 30 years, because it requires that people re-think their established assumptions.   When Juan Gonzalez came to the majors in 1991 or 1992, we published projections for him that proved to be absolutely accurate.   When Jason Heyward came to the majors in 2010, we presented projections for him that proved to be extremely accurate. . . .Jason Heyard, and Reid Brignac, and Trevor Crowe, and Ian Desmond.    We publish very accurate projections for a dozen or more rookies every year in the Handbook.   Why is this not evidence that it is possible to do this?
 
Let me try this another way. .. .if you are asserting a general theory of statistical uncertainty based on transitions, I doubt that I would disagree with you, and I would tend to accept the theory while awaiting proof.   If, on the other hand, you are asserting a specific theory of statistical uncertainty applying uniquely to minor league hitting statistics, then what I would say is that over a period of many years we have presented much more than sufficient evidence to show that these projections can be made accurately.

 

Outfit Du Jour: Big jacket, warm knits and ankle boots

Submitted by Penny Lane on 12/13/12 1:23pm

This woman knows the key elements for cool temperatures: an oversized jacket, a cozy scarf, knit tights and ankle boots. The svelte silhouette of her legs balances the roomy quality of her jacket and scarf while the different textures and colors complement one another. Also, in case you didn't know, this is how you rock a backpack.

Oversized jacket, cozy scarf, knit tights and ankle boots: yes!

Blast from the past: rockin' the backpack!

Warm knit tights with caramel ankle boots: it's a do!

Selling Your Soul

Submitted by jemanji on 12/13/12 1:00pm
Kelly Gaffney takes the blog-o-sphere deep

.

Dr. K's point right here:

"The franchise value has increased from 48% over those nine years, but over the time period the value of the Rangers has increased by 120% and the value of the Angels by 417%*."

Lemme pull rank here a bit, as (apparently) the Seattle blogger most familiar with 7th-floor steering committees.  F-500 execs live and die by market share, live and die by the question of, "How are we doing compared to other people selling the same thing?"  

Dr. Kelly's point not only has traction; it's a point that has so much traction that it had buried jemanji in oblivion.  It hadn't even occurred that the appreciation had been so low for the Mariners.  48% over nine years is only 5.3% per year, and that is pitiful at these corporate levels, in this industry sector.  10%, 12% per year would be only marginally acceptable.  The Rangers have scored over 30% per annum, calculated straight-line in retro.

Bloggers and Warts Spiders talk "profit" when, in fact, yearly cash flow is a trivial consideration compared to appreciation.  The profit is when you sell (and that profit is fairly liquid, can be -- and is -- pulled at any time through bank loans).

For the Mariners it's a LITTLE different, because they're not EXACTLY a Seattle's Best Coffee that could be PUT TO DEATH by a Starbucks.  The Mariners, almost uniquely, face no competition for market from other MLB franchises.  But do you notice how hyper-sensitive the Mariners are even to the Sonics and Seahawks?  Who don't play, mostly, at the same time they do?

The execs can and do look at Kelly's issue -- 1.2x and 4x growth for AL West teams while they saw a piddling 0.5x growth over a decade -- and they panic, believe me.  Now I finally understand why the Mariners' puzzling willingness to bid on Prince Fielder last year.

..............

I think I read that the M's attendance drop, over the last decade or so, has been THE largest in SPORTS.  Other teams have gone from winners to losers, but other teams have not lost their soul, have not decided that the pennant race is peripheral to what they do.

You could compare bloggers' outrage to the Royals' temerity in deciding to trade for James Shields.  For many bloggers, the pennant race is peripheral to making smarter-than-thou decisions.  You can certainly argue that Wil Myers is too precious to give away; Bill James is arguing that at BJOL.  What you can't do is multiply that variable times the variable of "The Royals Have No Right To Try To Win."  

It is precisely here, in the barren wilderness of non-pennant-race prioritization, that Dr. D has been wandering since the 2001 trade deadline.  The Mariners decided that they couldn't get carried away with winning.  The 2001 Mariners had briefly enjoyed the fruits of their 1999-2001 windfall:  a $400M taxpayer stadium coupon, and the dazzling brilliance of Pat Gillick.  Thanks to the taxpayers and Gillick, the Mariners' shot-callers were local celebrities for a few years.

Except for the five-year blip caused by the taxpayers and Gillick, and the little asterisk of the wasted Piniella-Griffey era, the Mariners since 1977 have played soulless baseball. 

Do the Mariners want to win?  All sports teams are interested in that, just like all fathers are interested in having sons who adore them.  Some fathers prioritize that more than other fathers do.  Some fathers have soulless family relationships.  It didn't happen because they set losing as a goal.  It happened because they didn't pay the price necessary to have families that were filled with joy and love.  They didn't prioritize.

Sports teams have tons of priorities:  franchise appreciation, and the corporate "brand," and to be good community citizens, and to win by the way, and to have a great relationship with Nike, and to feather their next TV contract nest, and to have players who don't go to jail, and 1,000 other priorities.  Some teams put "winning" higher on that list than do others.  Guess where Magic Johnson puts it on HIS list?

...............

As Sandy says, Hamilton's marquee value in and of itself *isn't necessarily* the key to a turnaround; neither is winning, exactly.  It's a sense that you have a team, from the CEO down, a team that "wants to win" as Magic Johnson put it when he just authorized the latest Greinke cash splurge in Dodger Blue.

The M's sold their soul, and they have paid dearly.   Hamilton, plus other adds, would have been a big step towards reclamation of that soul.  What they do now, I dunno.  

The Mariners don't sell tires or widgets or tax preparation.  They sell a pennant race.  The Royals traded for James Shields because of a PENNANT RACE.  Whether it was correct execution is totally irrelevant.  The corporate mission is what defines your brand and your future.

Since the trade deadline 2001, Silentpadna and I have been waiting for a team that wants to win as badly as its rivals do.  There have been a few minor signals now, that this may be changing somewhat.  We'll see.

..............

Great article, Dr. K.

Sketchy Sketches: Christmas Sweatz

Submitted by brodiemanthe1st on 12/13/12 12:44pm

Containing a plethora of extra cast, (Grace Helbig, Hannah Hart, Benny Fine and DeStorm Power), Rhett & Link made a nice little tune about the woes of boring sweats and a clever way to make them festive. Well, as long as you have at least one friend.

Pulling At My Heartstrings: Tongue Twisters Twist Toddlers Tongue

Submitted by brodiemanthe1st on 12/13/12 10:00am

Tongue twisters get us all little girl, they get us all. But our hearts melt at the sight of watching you try.

Things You Should Probably Know: Using Science To Be Productive

Submitted by brodiemanthe1st on 12/13/12 9:00am

If you are anything like me, one of the hardest parts of your day is taking that first step out of bed to face the world. Fortunately for us all, ASAP Science decided it was time to talk about the science of productivity. Watch, learn, rethink your strategies in life. We can all be productive, as long as we start making the change.

Pop Culture Happenings: 'Pacific Rim' Trailer Will Blow You Away

Submitted by brodiemanthe1st on 12/13/12 7:32am

Guillermo del Toro has been speaking about "Pacific Rim" for a while now, so when I found out an actual trailer had dropped, I got excited. With Idris Elba, Charlie Hunnam, giant robots and huge crazy monsters, what's not to love?

test

Submitted by admin on 12/12/12 11:14pm

test

Pages