Thanks, Peter, That's Very Helpful

I'm going to go ahead and follow FJM's lead by criticizing Peter King's weekly fantasy advice article. For those who haven't read these things, rest assured that PK's otherwise pretty solid knowledge of the players/teams/game does not translate to the world of fantasy sports. In fact, I'm pretty sure he's only played fantasy football, like, once. If that.

This particular foible isn't really about bad advice, though, per se, so much as..."huh?" advice:

Got Cedric Benson? This is the week he blows up against the Lions.

Peter...uh? Wait wait wait- what does that even mean? Does that mean he "explodes" with lots of yardage and touchdowns? OR does that mean Benson completely "falls apart" against a ferocious(uhhh...) Lion defense?

Personally, I really hope that he literally meant that Cedric Benson's body will shatter into thousands of pieces rapidly moving away from each other. That would be....AWESOME (ifnotgrossandsad).

Also, in a possible sequel to last week's advice to sit Brian Westbrook, this week he's advising to sit Larry Johnson for "any warm-bodied running option." Will do, Peter.

It's the Age-Old Debate: Is Jon Heyman a Dufus or a Dumbass?

SI's Jon Heyman writes stupid things pretty much every week. This week he's talking about the upcoming free agent class of centerfielders, including Andruw Jones and Torii Hunter. And, in an effort to sound like he knows what he's talking about, invents a historical controversy that I'm pretty sure only he knows about:

It's the age-old debate: career vs. year. Jones is having the better career, Hunter the better year.

Career vs. year? Is this really an age-old debate? I've been a rabid baseball fan my entire life and have never heard of this debate...

Okay, okay, let's say, all other things being equal (including age, probably most importantly)...you have a choice between shelling out cash for:

A. Some 28 year-old dude who has hit 25 homeruns and 100 RBI for each of his first 6 seasons, although this season he is "underperforming" at 20 homeruns and 85 RBI

-OR-

B. Some 28 year-old dude who has hit 15 homeruns and 75 RBI for each of first 6 seasons although this season he explodes for 30 homeruns, 100 RBI.


I mean, to me, it's pretty obvious. The first guy is not only dependable, but available at a reduced price. Vica versa for guy B.

Not that Hunter or Jones really fit either of these categories- both have been really consistent throughout their careers, with Hunter averaging ~25, 90 and Jones at ~35, 105. And Hunter's "career year" is pretty identical to what he did last year, anyways- as of today, he's played in one more game, hit 3 fewer homers, and knocked in 4 more guys (although OPS+ is 11 higher) than last year.

Jones is still way better, though, and 2 years younger. Not exactly an age-old debate.


I guess I can't completely blame Heyman for thinking this debate exists (and, in fact, is so ancient and ingrained in the flesh of humanity that it not only was one of the causes of the American Civil War but also caused a 3 month stand-off b/t Achilles and Hector at the Battle for Troy (see the Aeneid). Achilles argued for career; Hector died slowly of spear-to-the-throat) since baseball GM's often behave as if flash-in-the-pan one-hit-wonder shooting-stars are just as deserving as rock-solid day-in-day-out sure-as-the-sun-rises tough-as-leather eat-shit-and-bark-at-the-moon go-to-guys.

E.g. Here are two obvious "year" guys who were way overpaid because professional baseball executives ignored the limp-itude of all of their other years:

-Adrian Beltre, who average 20 homeruns and 75 RBI (OPS+ about a flat 100) for each of this first 6 seasons, but then exploded with 48, 121, and a ridiculous 163+ en route to a 5 year, $64 million contract.

-Gary Matthews Jr. (of the career OPS of .750), who went slightly nutty with OPS of .866 in his contract year, earning 5 years and $50 million.


I forgot what I was talking about. The point is, Jon Heyman is a dummy. The End.