I liked Jon Sciambi's Baseball Prospectus piece so much, I wrote about it twice: once here, and again today at Fangraphs. Here are my suggestions:

Sciambi’s a good broadcaster, and he clearly has his heart in the right place: his goal is to enhance the viewers’ experience of the game, by giving them useful information that they can understand, neither dumbing it down nor sailing it over their heads. That’s a tricky assignment, because it’s always hard to be all things to all people, and it’s hard to be part of any movement pushing a paradigm shift. It’s hard to please a casual watcher who doesn’t know the acronyms or methodology of advanced sabermetrics at the same time that you’re trying to say something that Dave Cameron doesn’t already know. (As Will Carroll notes, last year ESPN tried to make OPS a regular feature of their baseball broadcasts, but apparently their viewers thought it was “too complicated.”)

So what can be done? I think a lot of non-saberheads get hung up on the constellation of acronyms that we use, getting so hung up at all the capital letters that they miss the meaning behind them. (Like Jim Bowden, creator of “OBPATUZXYZ,” or Jon Heyman, inventor of “VORPies.”) So, pace Will Carroll, we need to be willing to let broadcasters be stupid — but with a purpose. The stats around here are pretty easy to read, because they’re all scaled to look like things we’re more familiar with, but we’re not going to see a broadcaster talk about FIP any time soon. However, everyone understands runs and wins, and, as Will Carroll says, anyone can understand a statement like “Albert Pujols was two wins better than Zack Greinke last season.” It has to be justified, but we’ve all heard broadcasters make unsupportable assertions about how many more wins a player adds to his team, or how many runs he saves with his glove. These are just numbers that add support to things they already say. And it can easily be understood. Both by the Jon Sciambis of the world, and the Russ Smiths.

Sciambi surprised my in his compliments of Joe Simpson, whom he described as an old-school guy who was completely open to slightly more granular splits and analytic techniques. I hadn't thought of Joe Simpson as particularly open to new-school methods. With Sciambi gone, though, I'm not sure who on the Braves' team will introduce smarter stats to the booth. I like Don Sutton a lot, but he's never struck me as a guy on the cutting edge, and you all know how I feel about Chip Caray. Can Jim Powell be the guy?

I doubt it, but I'll be listening.

Just when I was starting to feel like I knew the guy, Jon "Boog" Sciambi moved from working the play-by-play for the Braves to a cushy job at ESPN. He deserved it -- he's a good broadcaster, a little bland, but well-meaning and adds to the action rather than detracts from it, unlike Chip Caray. Unfortunately, what's good for him is bad for us, because it means that we lost one of our best guys. He just wrote a very good, very thoughtful guest piece over at Baseball Prospectus about trying to introduce more advanced stats into baseball broadcasts.

The goal is not unveiling newfangled stats; it's about getting people to understand basic ideas and concepts. To achieve that, we can't just slap stats up on the screen and explain them. Understanding has to come in the form of analysis. We have to use the stat and explain it. Sometimes it needs to be the PBP guy playing analyst and getting the color guy to react:

If Ryan Howard is up, I can talk about RBI and why dependent stats don't evaluate individual performance well; RBI aren’t what reflects Howard’s greatness, his SLG does. I can mention that Howard's massive RBI totals may be due to the fact that no player has hit with more total men on base than Howard since 1492 (I believe this is a fact but didn't feel like looking it up). Point is, there are dead people who could knock in 80 runs hitting fourth in that Phillies lineup. (OK, I probably wouldn't say that on-air.)

The metrics are getting so advanced that we're in danger of getting further away from the masses instead of closer. We, as broadcasters, have to find better and entertaining ways of explaining the math in bite-sized terms. Simplified, we need to explain that one of the problems with batting average, as opposed to slugging percentage, is that batting average values a single and a home run equally. We can't assume that's understood just because we understand it. And the only way it gets embedded is to keep beating the audience with it so that it becomes ingrained the way ERA eventually did, even though that once passed for advanced math.

Plenty more good stuff over there -- go read it. Let's all pray that Chip Caray does too.

Hank Aaron visited the Braves' spring training camp today, and Dave O'Brien and Charles Odum of the AP took down a number of his quotes. He had a lot to say about the low number of African-Americans in baseball. (By my count, and I apologize for the implicit tokenization, Joe Thurston is the only other African-American player in camp. Obviously, there are also Latino and Caribbean players of color, not to mention our Asian pitchers, on the roster and in camp.) Aaron said he was glad to see Heyward in camp, but that "it dampens my spirit when I come up to spring training and I look at the kids – I’m not talking about tomorrow, I’m talking about right now – and don’t see any black kids."

I envy Heyward the chance to meet Hank Aaron -- the greatest right fielder in baseball history -- but what Hank's saying isn't new. And, as Hank points out, it's about economics. In this country, football and basketball are the major scholarship sports, so unless you come from a well-heeled background (as indeed Jason Heyward does, the son of Dartmouth grads), those two sports are your best ticket to college and ultimately the pros. In Latin America, the economic incentive is entirely in baseball's favor: in towns like San Pedro de Macoris, D.R., the biggest money on the landscape comes from the scouts with American checkbooks handing out millions of dollars in signing bonuses. There are no other jobs, no other industries, and certainly no other sports that can compete with that.

Otherwise, he had many nice things to say, praising Tommy Hanson ("a bubbling superstar in their pitching") and Jair Jurrjens, Jason Heyward ("I think he’s going to do well") and Bobby Cox ("Bobby’s just been wonderful, not only to this organization and the city of Atlanta, he’s been good for baseball").

Ultimately, there wasn't a ton of red meat in the interview -- no scoops, bombshells, or other surprises -- but it’s just nice to hear the man talk. He still passionately loves baseball and the Braves, and carries himself with dignity, grace, and humility. He was my first hero. He still is.

Bringing you some interesting discussion pieces this Sunday afternoon, courtesy of our old friends at the AJC and MLB.com:

First, and most important, the Braves are reportedly close to making a landmark signing.  Looking back at the previous post, no, it's not Johnny Damon.  It's not even a player who will play in the majors in 2010, or even 2011 (probably).  Mark Bowman of MLB.com says the Braves are "nearing a deal" with 18-year-old Dominican shortstop phenom Edward Salcedo.  Salcedo has been on the radar for a couple of years now: back when he was a Scott Boras client, he inked a deal with the Indians north of $2 million.  That deal was voided over concerns about his age, but this time around, MLB has conducted an official investigation to verify Salcedo's age.  The Braves reportedly initiated the investigation.  He's expected to command a similar bonus this time around, so it would represent more than double the biggest bonus the Braves have ever handed to a Latin American signee.

He's strong, athletic, and supposedly plays a very smooth shortstop with a good arm.  He's got great bat speed and plenty of power projection, but his swing has lots of moving parts so timing may be an issue against advanced breaking balls.  He's an excellent fit for a Braves organization that's very thin on prospects left of second base.  Salcedo's 6'3" frame could fill out and force him to move to third base as Chipper Jones' replacement, or he could keep his defensive chops and perhaps even move Escobar over to the hot corner.  Salcedo would combine with Arodys Vizcaino to represent a huge shot in the arm to our minor-league system this winter.

A couple other quick housekeeping notes from the AJC:

David O'Brien brings word that reliever Scott Proctor is well ahead of schedule in his rehab from Tommy John surgery, to the extent that he might even be ready to make the Opening Day roster.  The seventh spot in the bullpen is pretty wide open, and Proctor certainly has the stuff to be a quality reliever if he can get healthy.  However, there's a caveat: if he spends more than about three weeks in the minors, the Braves will control his rights for 2011 via his final year of arbitration.  O'Brien makes the obvious comp between Proctor and Peter Moylan last spring, but remember how rusty Pete was in the earlygoing last year?  I'm in favor of letting Proctor rehab the extra month while giving a youngster like Luis Valdez an audition in the 'pen.  Then, we can keep Proctor an extra year if we want.

I know this is old news (ten days old, to be precise), but Jeff Schultz caught up with John Smoltz, and Smoltz says he's "open to anything" as far as where he plays in 2010.  Naturally there's going to be speculation about a return to the Braves, even though the Atlanta pitching staff appears to be pretty crowded.  It sounds like Smoltz is over the animosity that surrounded his departure last winter, and it also sounds like he's been keeping in pretty close touch with his Braves friends like Tom Glavine and Bobby Cox.  Smoltz was victimized last year by a .354 BABIP, and still struck out nearly a batter per inning with a K/BB ratio north of four.  Used carefully, he could still be a major-league asset.  His return would sell tickets, and he's the kind of guy who could make it worthwhile to shuffle the staff a bit.  But is it worth taking the chance of having to let him go again if he comes back in less than top-notch form?

Oh, and as a final thought, I'll go on the record as saying that as much as I wanted Johnny Damon, he wasn't worth $8 million to the Braves.

Comments on anything?

A week ago, I wrote: "The Tigers offered Johnny Damon $14 million for two years. I'm guessing that he's out of our hands." Though the two-year deal, which Tigers owner Mike Illitch personally explained to the media, was little more than a negotiating tactic, it appears that I was right. Multiple sources are reporting that Damon and the Tigers have agreed on a one year, $8 million deal. He's not worth that to us, I'm afraid. (After all, Javy Vazquez wasn't worth $11 million to us.) This means that our opening-day outfield will be relatively weak, however, and adds to the pressure to bring up Heyward early.

This isn't a criticism of Wren, as such: we literally couldn't afford Damon at that price. But it's a shame, all the same.

I hate to be a Debbie Downer, you guys, but we're not out of the water yet. On the plus side, Mets fans on Fangraphs hate me because yesterday I wrote this:

I suppose we shouldn’t have been surprised by reports that the New York Mets are going after Rod Barajas. Though most fans and observers alike acknowledged that the Mets’ greatest needs were in their tattered starting rotation, Omar Minaya has focused the bulk of his attention on his second-string catching corps, signing Henry Blanco, Chris Coste, and Shawn Riggans, and retaining Omir Santos, September callup Josh Thole, and farmhand Robinson Cancel.

Of course, it kind of makes sense that Minaya doesn’t think that any one of those six is a starting catcher. But he spent much of the offseason pursuing Bengie Molina, whom no one would mistake for Gabby Hartnett. Molina was the Mets’ second-highest free agent priority behind only Jason Bay, and after Molina jilted them a month ago, they remained unable to think of any other position on the diamond. Despite the number of backup catchers the organization already possesses — and the paucity of reliable batterymates in the starting rotation — the Mets still seem to be focused on finding 162 games worth of backstops.

More at Fangraphs...

On the minus side, Jair Jurrjens's shoulder is still barking. He says that he's maybe a week or two from being able to throw, and his shoulder still feels tight and stiff. The MRI showed no structural damage, just inflammation, and Jurrjens described the doctor's diagnosis: "The doctor said that's the most beautiful MRI he ever saw in his life. Everything is intact and nothing is wrong in there. I'm happy with that."

Of course, the thing about an MRI is that you wouldn't get one if everything was okay. "The most beautiful MRI he ever saw" is a great line, because it's kind of an oxymoron: it was an attempt to figure out why in the world Jurrjens's shoulder is hurting, and one that revealed no good answer. His shoulder is still hurting, after all.

So keep your fingers crossed, but don't hold your breath.

Update: "MRI results showed that he isn't dealing with any structural damage in his right shoulder." Breathe a small sigh of relief, but not a big one, guys. Rafael Soriano showed us all that MRIs aren't the final word on injury. Jair still needs to be monitored closely and shut down the second he shows any kind of discomfort. (By the way, Rob Neyer linked to this post yesterday, saying "I'm roughly 90 percent in agreeance with Remington here.")

Original post: Jair Jurrjens is having an MRI on his shoulder, as you've heard by now. Shoulder soreness is bad; there are few things worse for a pitcher. The MLB.com story mentions that he felt a tired arm in 2008, after throwing 40 more innings that year than he ever had before (and thereby qualifying himself as a candidate for the Verducci Effect). In 2009, he pitched 215 innings, 26 2/3 more than in 2008.

Was he abused?

On a pitch-by-pitch basis, no. Jurrjens had six starts with more than 110 pitches last year, after only three such in 2008. On the other hand, this wasn't preferential treatment. Derek Lowe also had six starts of more than 110 pitches, and Javier Vazquez had 10. (Kawakami had two, and Tommy Hanson had just one.) In his 34 starts, which tied Lowe for the team lead, Jurrjens averaged 97.1 pitches a start and 15.3 pitches an inning -- while Lowe averaged 94.4 pitches a start but 16.5 an inning, Hanson averaged 94.4 pitches a start and 15.5 an inning, and Vazquez averaged 103.5 pitches a start and 15.1 pitches an inning. So he wasn't killed on a per-start basis. But all of those starts added up, and his 3305 pitches were second on the team, just behind Javy Vazquez's 3315, and 10th in the National League. (Both were far beyond league leader Adam Wainwright, who had 3614, or major league leader Justin Verlander, who had 3937, more than 300 more than runner-up Felix Hernandez.)

Then again, 215 innings seems like a lot for a 23-year old. And it is. Jurrjens is one of only 24 pitchers in the last 20 years to have a 215-inning season by his 23rd birthday. (Mark Buehrle, Ramon Martinez, and Steve Avery each had more than one.) As you might imagine with any group of precocious young pitchers, the vast majority of them got injured or flamed out by their 30th birthday. Two of them are headed to the Hall of Fame: John Smoltz and Mike Mussina. Several are still in their prime: Buehrle, Javy Vazquez, Felix Hernandez, Matt Cain, the rejuvenated Ryan Dempster. A few are still active but close to ruined by injuries or ineffectiveness: Dontrelle Willis, Ben Sheets, Fausto Carmona, Sidney Ponson, and the perhaps-retired Mark Mulder. Of the rest, a few of them pitched meaningful innings into their 30s: Andy Benes (done by 34), Brad Radke (done by 33), Matt Morris (done by 33),and Livan Hernandez (somehow still around, at 34). The others were all more or less done by the end of their 20s.

Remember, young pitcher attrition is extreme. So Jair's got the odds stacked against him. Does that mean that the Braves were wrong to let Jair Jurrjens pitch 215 innings? Maybe, but 215 isn't actually a very high number when you consider that it's an average of fewer than 6 1/3 innings per each of his 34 starts. It might have been best if they could have shut him down during the stretch run, but he was the team's second-best pitcher, and they couldn't afford to lose him -- and even then, they weren't overly reckless with his pitch count, as he stayed at or under 100 pitches for five of his last seven starts despite never pitching fewer than 7 innings.

The hell of it is that there isn't much the Braves could have done to prevent this. Arm problems for young pitchers are all but inevitable. All we can do now is cross our fingers and hope.

Two nice things. First of all, Tom Glavine finally did what we all hoped he'd do: he retired and came back to the Braves organization, joining our front office. He's a very smart guy who also seems to have personal integrity, and during his long tenure as a Player's Association representative he undoubtedly made a lot of front office contacts and learned a lot about the business of baseball. I couldn't be happier to have him back with the organization for the long haul. He was my first favorite player, you know?

Then, John Sickels did an incredibly detailed and very complimentary writeup of the Braves' most prominent pitching prospects at Rome and Myrtle Beach, which you really just need to go read. The money line comes at the end:

Overall, the A-ball level looks very impressive in terms of pitching depth for the Braves. And these are just the obvious names that show up on prospect lists; there are other organization arms that could slot in, too. The bottom line is that both Myrtle Beach and Rome should have pitching staffs composed entirely of pitchers with major league potential, without much filler fodder.

UPDATE 2: O'Brien changes his original report, now saying the Braves' offer is closer to $4.5 million total.  He doesn't think that's enough to get a deal done, but he says it's a strong first offer.  Tyler Kepner of the New York Times tweets that the offer is $2 million plus $2 million deferred, which is close to the Yankees' final offer.

UPDATE: O'Brien now adds that the Braves' offer is "believed to be worth at least $5 million, although some of that would be deferred."

It's been awhile since we've seen anything resembling a "real" rumor regarding the Braves, but today we've definitely got something on our hands.  Mark Bowman of MLB.com and David O'Brien of the Atlanta Journal-Constitution are both reporting that the Braves have made a one-year contract offer to free-agent left fielder Johnny Damon.  O'Brien characterizes the offer as "initial," says that the Braves' interest is "increased" and that they've even had Chipper Jones make a recruiting call of sorts to Damon.  Bowman's source adds that at least some of the money is deferred.  O'Brien (who has a pretty good connection with Scott Boras) tells us that Boras and Damon are still holding out for a two-year offer.

I remain 100% in support of a move to add outfield quality and depth by signing Damon, especially if some of the money involved is deferred.  I'd even be willing to make a two-year offer, worth perhaps $8 million total--again assuming deferral of some of the salary.  Even if Damon doesn't repeat his 2009 season (which he won't, given his age and his move out of NuYankee Stadium), he'll still likely be an offensive asset.  He can lead off and allow Nate McLouth to hit lower in the order.  Baseball Prospectus even projects him to be a neutral defender in the outfield; even if he's a negative, he'll be an improvement on Garret Anderson out there.  Have no fear that Jason Heyward will get his chance at stardom, with or without Damon.  I see the downside as minimal, and the upside as extremely significant.