I met Rob Neyer in person once. It was July or August of 2000, when I was a summer intern for Microsoft in Redmond, Washington. Rob announced earlier that day at the end of one of his columns that he'd be doing a book talk in Seattle. There probably aren't many jobs that will let you out at 3 or 4 the same day to drive across the (always, constantly packed solid) bridge to Seattle to listen to some goofy baseball writer, but non-programming summer intern at Microsoft is one of those jobs. He spoke to the audience of 25 or 30 guys about the current season, and then signed our copies of Baseball Dynasties (and one baseball, which Rob said was the first time he'd ever been asked to do that). That was my first real baseball-nerd get-together -- my first confirmation that, yes, there were really other people out there like me.

Which was appropriate, since just a year or two earlier, it was Rob himself who had made me the way I was. Contrary to what The Common Man said over at my current gig, I was much later than he was in making the conversion, and TCM was definitely my introduction to Neyer. It probably happened in 1998 or 1999 at a Twins game, when the Twins were losing spectacularly (as, in those days, they were wont to do) and we were just generally talking about things baseball, and I probably made some comment that had something to do with batting average or RBI, and TCM mentioned Rob to help illustrate to me the error of my ways. It was something like that. I became almost immediately obsessive, reading Rob's column every day (and getting irritated when it got to be the offseason and there was no column). I then picked up the Bill James Historical Baseball Abstract (the '86 version, in anticipation of the then-new New one) on Rob's recommendation, and found these other whole communities of people who thought like me (including, for a while, specific Rob Neyer ESPN message boards, which were to general ESPN baseball boards as Faulkner is to the new book by Snooki), and the whole way I thought about baseball had suddenly changed forever and completely.

Did you know that the convention for OPS didn't always include the decimal? In Neyer's early days pushing the much-better-than-batting-average statistic, he'd write it as, say, 620 (Neifi Perez) or 1074 (Nomar Garciaparra). Makes sense, when you think about it. OBP and SLG both measure something that compare rationally to 1; 1.000 OBP is perfect, while 1.000 SLG is one base per at-bat. 1.000 OPS? Nothing in particular, except "really good." no more meaningful than .999 or 1.001. Might as well make it 1000. Another thing that nobody remembers (and honestly I don't know if Rob ever talked about this, but while I'm on the subject) is that one of the early efforts to correct the SLG-heaviness of OPS was OPS-prime, either 1.4 or 1.2*OBP+SLG. Certainly not as accurate or interesting as wOBA and the like, but I liked it.

Is it even cool that I'm coming back here after about six months at the other place to write something? I don't know, but I found in Twittering and such today that I had a bit more to say about Rob than what The Common Man so eloquently wrote for both of us -- and separate and apart from what he's done for my blogging "career" -- so I thought I'd come over here to say it. The amazing thing is not that one guy who used to be a fantasy baseball writer for a company affiliated with ESPN had such a profound effect on the way I think about baseball, but that he had the same effect on so many other people.

Bill James had all the ideas, but Bill James' ideas might not get anywhere in the internet age without Neyer. Without Neyer, maybe there's still a baseball blogosphere, but maybe it's something that Murray Chass is damn proud to be a part of. There aren't a lot of people who can look back at what they've done in their current job and think, an entire field is completely different from what it might otherwise be, because I did what I did. Rob can say that (if he wants to, but I doubt he does).

A comment I've seen a few times today goes like this: Rob isn't dead, he's just leaving ESPN. He'll probably be writing somewhere new tomorrow, doing the same thing he's always done (and as of now, it actually sounds like it will literally be tomorrow). And I get that, as long as you weren't there in 1999 or 2000 or 2001. Because a big part of what the reaction is about is the continuity. The internet looks very different now than it did a year ago, and almost completely different than it looked three years ago. That one guy has been writing more or less the same stuff at the same site for the last fifteen years is absolutely astounding. They've even had the same predominant blue color for most of that time. If you were there, as a reader and a saberhead, the end of that -- just that, just Rob's work appearing in that same place -- is kind of a big deal, and it's OK to be kind of silly and nostalgic about it for a day.

I've had to disable comments becuase I was getting 10+ spam comments a day. If you happen to see this and have thoughts, feel free to This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it .

What can I tell you?

My favorite thing I've written recently (say, last two months?) was this piece on Rob Dibble's misogynist comments and his "apology."

I was going to say something about the piece currently on top of this page on a Minneapolis sports radio station's site ranting about pitch counts, but The Common Man and Craig beat me to it. And some of the comments below Craig's are pretty (mostly unintentnionally) hilarious.

What does a governor have to do to get thrown in jail for a really long time around here?

I get really sick of the Favre coverage, like almost everybody, and what appears to be happening seems to have been inevitable all along, and if it were any other team I'd be whining about it. But I can't help it. I get excited anyway.

I hope you're following me on Twitter and a fan of the new blog on Facebook.

I'm thinking about writing more about this, but: the other day, the Baseball-Reference blog asked whether Mariano Rivera was the greatest pitcher of all-time, and a goodly number of people said yes, or that he was close. Yesterday, Joe Posnanski asked around Twitter, and seemed to get a lot of responses saying that Mo was the most valuable Yankee since 1996. Do these facts make Mariano Rivera the most overrated/overhyped baseball player of all time? Because, I mean, he's great -- easy Hall of Famer, greatest closer and probably the greatest relief pitcher in history -- but without checking, I seriously doubt there's been even one season in which he was the best or most valuable player on his team.

You love sports, so why not make a career of it? A sports management degree from one of the top online colleges available can put you in the fast track to your dream job.

So as not to bury the lead: The Common Man and I have started a new blog, The Platoon Advantage, and are very pleased to have it become a part of Rob Neyer's SweetSpot Network. This site will remain right where it is (have no fear, my many gracious recent guest-posters!), but posting will slow to a stop over the next few months. I'm going to miss this place, and am very grateful to Bloguin for having had the opportunity, but this was just the right move for me for a few reasons. Read on for the full announcement.

So here's the thing.

I started this blog (well, not this blog, but the blogspot blog that became this blog) on a whim. I was bored and wanted to challenge myself to write things. At that time, I wasn't even 100% sure that all those things were going to be about baseball. I called it "The Daily Something" because I just wanted to make myself write something every day.

Well...that's hard. And it keeps getting harder. I've been thinking for a while about trying to find a new gig, where I have a collaborator (or collaborators) to relieve the pressure of writing something every single day before I just burned out entirely. I've had a few talks with people about adding co-writers to this blog, but nothing's ever really come of it. (And, frankly, I've never been a huge fan of the name The Daily Something. I mean, it's fine, but I thought it up in two whole minutes.)

A while back, while discussing my post on The Last Expo that ended up being linked to on Rob Neyer's page and elsewhere, I had a little email exchange with Rob in which he asked if I'd be interested in joining his "SweetSpot Network" of blogs. I was incredibly flattered; as he did for so many others around my age and is still doing today, Rob's writing really introduced me to sabermetrics and out-of-the-box baseball thinking, and I've been reading his stuff more or less daily for over ten years. I also knew that he had made similar inquiries with my friend of even more years than that (and near-weekly TDS guest writer), The Common Man. So...we started to think about stuff.

Bottom line: The Common Man and I have joined forces in a brand-new blog (well, his old blog, but with a brand new coat of paint and the ESPN seal of approval): The Platoon Advantage. My first post, and his, and an intro that explains it all, are already up.

This site isn't going anywhere: I'll occasionally be posting on it for at least the next month or two (probably some cross-posts with The Platoon Advantage Dot Com -- yes, I really want to drive the site into your brain -- and some occasional quick hits), and thanks to the great folks at Bloguin, the old posts will all still be here for the foreseeable future.

And I want to stress just how great those Bloguin folks are. This move has nothing at all to do with my Bloguin experience, which has been fantastic. If you've got a blog (especially one about sports, entertainment or video games) and would like to apply to get a prettier, more visible platform for it, by all means, go here (alternatively, if you've always wanted a baseball blog called The Daily Something and don't mind a bunch of my old posts in the archives, let me know and I'll see what I can do). I've really enjoyed working with these guys and have no reason to want to stop working with them; this opportunity was just too good a fit for me to pass up.

So please head over to ThePlatoonAdvantage.com. Check out our first couple posts, see what you think (hint: it's pretty much the same stuff we've been doing at our individual sites). Leave a comment or two. You know, really live it up.

And thanks for reading!

Sorry it's been quiet this week: it's my last week at home with the baby, and I'll be back to full-time duty next week. Here's another great guest post from Andrew Kneeland of the fabulous Twins Target.

The Baseball Writer's Association of America has long irked sporting fans from coast to coast. Basing their decisions on trivial aspects of the game (grittiness, hustle, and clutch being a few personal favorites) that really shouldn't factor in to MVP discussions.

But ever since 1931, this entity has been entrusted with selecting the “Most Valuable” player in each league after every year. Here are five of their biggest mistakes, based on difference in wins-above-replacement between the winner and league leader:

5.      Andre Dawson (2.7 WAR) over Tony Gwynn (8.1 WAR), 1987

Dawson: .287/.328/.568, 49 HR, 103 SO/32 BB, .378 wOBA
Gwynn: .370/.447/.511, 7 HR, 35 SO/82 BB, .419 wOBA

The Chicago Cubs of the late 1980s were not the best of teams. Even though they boasted Ryne Sandberg, Leon Durham, Jerry Mumphrey, and Rick Sutcliffe, (and a 24-year old Jamie Moyer, believe it or not), the Cubs rarely found themselves at the top of the National League East.

After being allowed to leave as a free agent after 11 seasons in Montreal, the 32-year old Dawson struggled to find a new home thanks in part to his old knees and baseball's rampant collusion problem. Dawson ended up parading around the reluctant Cubs' Spring Training Facility and offered Chicago a blank contract. The Cubs scribbled “$500,000” in the blank.

Dawson enjoyed one of his best seasons in 1987, hitting .287/.328/.568 with a league-leading 49 home runs. (His 137 runs batted in no doubt impressed voters, who obviously over-looked his 444 RBI opportunities.) Although I give the BBWAA credit for ignoring that their MVP selection came from a last-place team, Dawson was not the most valuable player in the National League in 1987.

Tony Gwynn was.

Gwynn finished 8th in MVP voting that year even though his 8.1 wins-above-replacement was the best in the league. Hitting .370/.447/.511, Mr. Padre combined speed and power better than anyone in the league. The 27-year old stole 56 bases that year, and was one of the few bright spots on a poor San Diego team, along with this guy.

Dawson simply wasn't the best hitter in 1987 (his .378 wOBA was 27th in the league), and, when considering his below-average defense and harsh positional adjustment, was far from being the most valuable player. Gwynn's resume hardly requires any tampering, but the Hall of Famer is bereft an MVP Award. He should have won in 1987.

4.      Steve Garvey (5.1) over Mike Schmidt (10.5), 1974

Garvey: .312/.342/.469, 21 HR, 66 SO/31 BB, .364 wOBA
Schmidt: .282/.395/.546, 36 HR, 138 SO/106 BB, .418 wOBA

This is a classic example of baseball award voters ignoring three aspects of the game that need to be looked at when evaluating players: fielding, positional adjustment, and the irrelevance of that players' team's success.

Garvey was a well above-average hitter for Los Angeles and helped lead his Dodgers to the World Series. As a first baseman, though, above-average offensive production was required. One-fourth of  the longest-lasting infield in baseball history, Garvey was a popular player and his .312/.342/.469 triple-slash line earned him 13 of the 22 first-place votes.

Mike Schmidt finished 6th in MVP voting that year, despite being superior to Garvey in just about every offensive category. Hitting .282/.395/.546 with 36 home runs, Schmidt can attribute his low position in the vote to a poor Phillies' team. Schmidt, then just 24, played phenomenal defense at third base, and though he struck out a league-leading 138 times, was third in the league in wOBA. Garvey was 32nd.

3.      Yogi Berra (3.8) over Mickey Mantle (9.5), 1955

Berra: .272/.349/.470, 27 HR, 20 SO/60 BB, .364 wOBA
Mantle: .306/.431/.611, 37 HR, 97 SO/113 BB, .455 wOBA

These were the glory years for the New York Yankees. Winning eight of the 12 World Series titles from 1947-1958, the Yankees were at the height of their glory. Excellent players and coaches were gracing Yankee Stadium with their presence, and it was certainly a great time to be a fan of the most successful sporting team on earth.

In fact, the Yankees were so successful that they had six players finish in the top-15 of the 1955 MVP vote. The always-popular Yogi Berra won the award that year despite sporting numbers that were merely great for the first time in six years. Berra's '55 line of .272/.349/.470 would make most major leaguers drool with envy, but for Berra they were actually worse than he usually posted.

Mantle, meanwhile had started what would be a decade of incredible performances with the Yankees. As a 23-year old in 1955, Mantle hit .306/.431/.611 with 37 home runs and 113 walks. (Save for batting average, Mantle led the league in every category I just mentioned.) His fielding in the outfield was very good, and even accounting for positional adjustment Mantle blows away the rest of the competition.

Strictly speaking, few can get worked up over this award. The two eventually became Hall of Famers and are among baseball's elite tier of legends. Should Mantle have received the '55 MVP Award, he would have launched one of the best careers in baseball history with three consecutive MVP Awards. In reality, though, Berra received the third MVP Award of his career in 1955.

Mantle wasn't nearly as dominant as he was the next two seasons, but he was the most deserving recipient of the award in 1955. A far inferior player was handed the hardware instead, solidifying Mantle's position among baseball's snubbed.

2.      Mickey Cochrane (4.3) over Lou Gehrig (10.7), 1934

Cochrane: .320/.428/.412, 2 HR, 26 SO/78 BB, .396 wOBA
Gehrig: .363/.465/.706, 49 HR, 31 SO/109 BB, .509 wOBA

Like the previous one, this snubbing also involves two future Hall of Famers and would hardly change the course of baseball history if the results were reversed. Cochrane, a catcher, relied upon his ability to hit for average and get on base at an astounding clip for his offensive success. Gehrig was also able to hit for average and get on base, but also boasted one of the most powerful bats in baseball history.

Gehrig, a first baseman, had a career slugging percentage of .632 and averaged 37 home runs per 162 games. In 1934, Gehrig hit 49 moon shots, which lead the league. He was also tops in the American League in all three rate stats and total bases. His .539 secondary average was 260 points higher than Cochrane's. For a 31-year old, this was very impressive.

The 1934 Detroit Tigers qualified for the World Series before falling to Dizzy Dean's St. Louis Cardinals in seven games. This postseason fame gave Cochrane and teammates Charlie Gehringer, Schoolboy Rowe, Hank Greenberg, and Marv Owen five of first nine finishes in that year's MVP race. New York's Lefty Gomez can attribute his 3rd-place finish to his 26 wins, and Gehrig finished fifth.

Gehrig hardly needs another MVP Award placed next to his other two, but he was the best player in 1934 and deserved to be recognized, even if it meant slowing Cochrane's Hall of Fame induction by a few more years.

1.      Juan Gonzalez (2.8) over Ken Griffey, Jr. (9.7), 1996

Gonzalez: .314/.368/.643, 47 HR, 82 SO/45 BB, .418 wOBA
Griffey, Jr.: .303/.392/.628, 49 HR, 104 SO/74 BB, .427 wOBA

In terms of difference in wins-above-replacement, the BBWAA made a mighty mistake in 1996. In fact, Gonzalez was the least deserving of the 21 players to receive MVP votes 1996, according to Baseball-Reference.com.

The year 1996 was chock-full of home runs (and steroid usage), leading to no shortage of impressive OPS figures and RBI totals. Gonzalez was near the top of both lists, was a crucial member of an emerging Texas Rangers squad, and was recognized as the best player in baseball.

Unfortunately for others, that was far from the case. Although the story of both Gonzalez and the Rangers growing up together and ultimately reaching their first postseason in franchise history Junior posted the highest WAR that season, according to B-Ref. Griffey finished fourth in the voting after receiving just four first-place votes.

Like Gonzalez, Griffey had also spent many years with his organization and was one of the primary reasons his team reached the postseason for the first time. Griffey had the best season of his career in 1996, even accumulating 139 RBI thanks to his 20.79 RBI percentage (third highest in the league). Griffey had the stats baseball writers look for when choosing an MVP (HR, RBI, a team with a winning record), but struggled with the mask of anonymity that Seattle gave him.

While Griffey was a phenomenal defender in the Mariner's outfield, Gonzalez was atrocious. Griffey was one of the few true five-tool players in baseball history, but his best season was over-shadowed by a far-inferior Gonzalez.

Gonzalez will be eligible for induction into the Hall of Fame next year. Steroid allegations will always haunt Gonzo, but many will point to his 1996 MVP campaign as reason for his election. Griffey will always be a legend, but how much more would one additional MVP award have solidified his place in baseball lore?

Thanks to the mistakes of the Baseball Writers Association of America, we'll never know.

Honorable mentions: Marion over Musial, 1944; Eckersly over Clemens, 1992; Hernandez over Ripken, 1984; Baylor over Brett, 1979; Vaughn over Valentin, 1995; Bell over Boggs, 1987; McGee over Gooden, 1985; Mattingly over Henderson, 1985; Munson over Fidrych, 1976; Fingers over Henderson, 1981

Part of me really wants to write about the Ramos for Capps trade and how totally, almost comically clueless Twins GM Bill Smith is, but that hits too close to home (and I imagine you'll be reading about it today in many other places if you're interested). Instead, I want to talk about the bigger news from yesterday: the Astros finally traded Roy Oswalt, sending him to the Phillies for 5th or 6th starter J.A. Happ and a couple decent prospects (one of whom they were somehow able to turn into a much better prospect, but that's not relevant to my point here).

On MLB.com yesterday, columnist Hal Bodley opined that the trade represented redemption for Phillies GM Ruben Amaro, Jr.:

[F]or the first time since the Phillies shocked the baseball world and their fans by dealing Cliff Lee to Seattle for three mediocre prospects last December -- just hours after getting ace Roy Halladay from Toronto -- Amaro will no longer have to avoid questions about that bewildering move.

It's somewhat amusing that Amaro's announced priority at this Deadline was to obtain a starting pitcher. He wouldn't have had to say that had the Phillies not given Lee away.

Bodley states that the Lee trade was "one of the worst moves in the franchise's history." But Bodley sees this move, for Oswalt, as sort of wiping the slate clean; Amaro no longer has the Lee trade hanging over his head, because the Oswalt trade gives the Phils one of the best rotations in baseball.

See, I see it as the exact opposite. There's no question the Phillies got a good deal here, but the fact that it had to happen just highlights what a terrible move Amaro made in letting Lee get away in the first place.

Flash back to this past winter. The Phillies made a great move to get Roy Halladay, one of the best pitchers in the game. At almost the same time, they traded away Cliff Lee for a reasonable but not overwhelming stable of prospects (all of which have been between mediocre and awful in 2010, but that's beside the point).

All Amaro had to do was nothing at all, and he would have had a rotation headed by Halladay and Lee -- who might be the best pitcher in the game -- for the entire season. And Lee, at $9 million for 2010, came unbelievably cheap for what he gives you. The idea that the Phillies couldn't afford to keep both Halladay and Lee, for just this one season, is simply not believable.

What's more, with two consecutive World Series appearances and the oldest roster in baseball, the Phillies are obviously a team looking to win now. If Amaro was looking to restock the farm system after the Halladay deal, trading away another of the game's best pitchers was probably the worst possible way to do it -- especially considering that Lee's departure via free agency would have brought them two high draft picks.

So try to imagine the 2010 Phillies with Lee and Halladay. They've got a better rotation than they have now with Oswalt, and for the entire season (also, Lee's a lefty, which at least superficially makes the Halladay/Lee 1-2 punch more appealing than the Halladay/Oswalt one). By most measures, Lee has been worth between 4 and 5 runs above replacement this year (and in the tougher league); Lee's innings would likely have entirely replaced Kyle Kendrick, who has been right around replacement level, and also taken some pressure off the bullpen. Four extra wins -- which seems conservative -- would put the Phillies a game and a half ahead of the Braves this morning, rather than two and a half behind, and would be in a better position going forward with Lee than they are now with Oswalt.

Again, Amaro did well for himself, in isolation, in picking up Oswalt. And Oswalt is under contract for 2011 (at an above-market rate, but $11 million in cash from the Astros makes it a relatively friendly deal from the Phillies perspective), which helps, but not much. Amaro claims that his inability to resign Lee for 2011 was a key concern in the decision to deal him, but with the uncertainty of Jayson Werth's contract and the advanced and advancing age of the team, 2011 should not be a key concern in anything Phillies-related right now. They might win in 2011, but they know they can win in 2010.

So, in isolation, getting Oswalt was a good trade for Amaro. But the trade highlights the fact that the Phillies would be in a much, much better position, on this date and for the next two or three months, had he simply not panicked about the future and hung onto the even better second ace he already had.

I had a blast last night, when The Common Man, Larry from Wezen-Ball and I recorded our second bi-weekly podcast. We talked a lot about Dan Haren, the trade deadline and the various pennant races. You can check it out here. We'll do it again on August 11.

Almost two months ago, the Twins called up third baseman and marginal prospect Danny Valencia, and I was unenthused. I noted that Valencia's minor league numbers showed moderate power and moderate-to-poor plate discipline, and that he didn't have a sterling defensive reputation; add it all up, and he just didn't look like a big-league regular.

Or, to put it another way, all the best methods available -- his MLEs, CHONE, and ZiPS -- point to the same one sad conclusion: Valencia, as a Major League player, looks a lot like Nick Punto, except without any of those things that make Punto a useful player. Put yet another way: blech.

So. That was June 1. By the end of June, Valencia had played in 16 games and amassed 50 plate appearances, and my predictions were looking OK. Valencia was batting .304, but with just four walks and one extra-base hit (a double), putting his OPS at just .686, right around where his MLEs put him. From observation, I can tell you that most of his hits were bloop singles or little ground balls that bled through a hole somewhere -- exactly the way you might expect Nick Punto to be hitting .304 after a month.

Since then, of course, Valencia has been tearing the league to pieces, capped off by the four-game three-hits streak that The Common Man tackled yesterday. Even after his 0-for-3 to end the streak yesterday, Valencia is hitting .468/.519/.660 in July. He's had about the same number of plate appearances he had in June, and has just one more walk, but has six more extra base hits, including a long grand slam home run off of Zack Greinke. For the year, he's now hitting .387/.441/.495, good for a .417 wOBA and 164 wRC+. UZR also thinks he's played excellent defense thus far (and I can tell you he looks sharp out there on TV). He's already put up 1.3 WAR, which works out to 8.4 wins above replacement over 660 plate appearances, a clearly MVP-type performance. So I thought it would be a good time to reevaluate.

The Minnesota Twins have bolted out of the gate in the second half of the season, winning nine of their first 13 games, including the last two against the Kansas City Royals by a combined score of 30-3.  In the meantime, they have cut the Chicago White Sox’s lead in the AL Central down to a single game and put some distance between them and the injury-plagued Detroit Tigers.

And in the last four games, rookie Danny Valencia has virtually guaranteed himself the starting 3B job for the rest of the year.  Sure, everyone’s hitting, but no one is hitting quite as much as Valencia is.  In each of the last four games, Valencia has had three hits, including four in each of his last two.  Using Baseball Reference’s Play Index, we can find that Valencia’s hot streak isn’t that uncommon.  In all, 86 players since 1920 have had at least three hits in four straight games including such luminaries as Tyler Houston, Thomas Howard, Dave Chalk, Irv Noren, Cal Abrams, Mel Almada, Creepy Crespi, and Lee Scarsella.  Three players, Kirby Puckett, Johnny Damon, and Gee Walker did it twice.

That said, while the list of players does include a few flukes, it’s far more populated with really good players.  Seventy of the 86 players on that list had more than 10 wins above replacement for their career according to Baseball Projections WAR data.  Fifty-four of the 86 had a career WAR above 20.0.  The average career WAR on the list is 34.9, though that number is misleading because the list is dominated by extremely valuable players like Ty Cobb, Stan Musial, Rogers Hornsby, and Lou Gehrig.  Indeed, the scatter chart begins to look exponential if you plot their career WARs.

A more representative measure, then, is probably to look at the median WAR of these players, which is Cecil Travis’s 26.6.  Actually, Travis, a line drive hitting SS and 3B for the Senators, is a good match for Valencia, who does not project to hit for power at the major league level, and would a good mark to shoot for.  Travis was always solid, and occassionally excellent for the Senators in the 1930s and early '40s, before he went to World War II.  There, Travis served on the front line in the Battle of the Bulge, where he got frostbite in two of his tows, and had to have them amputated.  When he returned after almost four full seasons, Travis was 34 and the time away and his foot injury left him unable to contribute.  After a season and a half below replacement level, he retired.  In all, Valencia’s 1.4 WAR through less than 100 plate appearances already tops five of the players on the list (Mel Almada, Fresco Thompson, Gil Coan, Scarsella, and Houston).

Valencia’s 14 hits over four games is much more impressive.  Since 1920, he is tied (with 9 others) for ninth all time for the most hits over four consecutive games.  While the list contains a lot of great to good players, headlined by Musial and Wade Boggs, the all time leader is Milt Stock, who actually had four consecutive four hit games in 1925.  As remarkable as it was, Stock’s feat was not noticed by the media, and may have been overlooked entirely in his day.  Jimmy Johnston also had two four game spans (6/25-6/29 and 6/26-6/30) in 1923 in which he had 15 hits each.  Johnston holds the record for most consecutive games with more three hits or more, with six straight games in which he collected 23 total hits for Brooklyn.  The papers couldn’t help but notice Johnston, who The Boston Globe noticed had hit .828 for the week.  To put that in some perspective, Valencia’s streak has lasted two fewer games and he’s hitting only .737.  That’s a hell of a week.

So what’s the outlook for Danny Valencia?  It’s certainly possible that the four game streak is a fluke.  After all, Milt Stock and Jimmy Johnston aren’t exactly world beaters.  But for the most part, the kind of stretches enjoyed by Valencia are relatively common for good major league hitters, because to get that hot you generally need to have the underlying skill to support it (with some luck).  The Marv Owens of the world need a lot more luck to be able to pull this off.  So we should be fairly bullish on Danny Valencia.  He is, of course, not going to turn into Wade Boggs or George Brett suddenly (both of whom also had a similar stretch), but the kid looks like he’ll turn into a pretty good major league 3B.  The Twins should happily take a right handed Cecil Travis for the next few years.

If you’re following the trade deadline for the past couple years, you’ve noticed how valuable prospects have become.  Even non-elite prospects are guarded with the ferocity of Cerberus by GMs who realize that having 6 years cost-controlled mediocrity is better than short-term, higher-cost, low-efficiency options.  Sure, these veterans tend to be better than the younger options, but in a world where you’re compelled to buy victories, it’s better to save money at the margins to make a big splash on a difference-making player.

Not only has this led to the extreme valuation of prospects that not every GM has caught up on (hello Ed Wade!), but it has also slowed down the deadline considerably as teams are struggling to find acceptable deals for their high-priced veterans.  As a result, these GMs are holding their vets for a bit longer, hoping to snooker some desperate GM at the last minute.  Of course, any decision like this has unintended consequences, as Dayton Moore, Doug Melvin, and Billy Beane are finding out. The risk of holding on to players like David DeJesus, Corey Hart, and Ben Sheets too long is that sometimes players get hurt.

Indeed, DeJesus and Sheets look like they’re out for the year, and Hart has not played since jamming his wrist on Friday.  As a result, the Royals and A’s, and perhaps the Brewers as well, will not be able to acquire new talent for organizations in desperate need of it.  The compulsion for GMs to find the best deal, the perfect deal, has gotten so great that GMs are making no deal until they are forced, which often is taking the actual choice out of their hands.

In this new economy of prospects, GMs seem to have two options.