Very well said.  I LOVE the idea of getting to the playoffs with Felix/Bedard and the current incarnation of Washburn or a hopeful future incarnation of Morrow as my short series rotation, even if it means that Jack Wilson or (insert slick-fielding, no-hit SS here) is at shortstop.
But, to go to the same series with Vargas/Olson/RRS or the current incarnation of Morrow as my #2... it doesn't matter if its JJ Hardy or ARod at shortstop, I'm not thinking we are the favorite.
We all have looked forward to Randy Johnson starts and now Felix starts for years because each time we know that we will win AND we will get to watch DOMINATION.  Erik Bedard has that same ability to dominate.  Not many pitchers do. 
Keep up the great work
-Corey

As always, nice read, Doc.  But, one area where I think both you and USSM are off-base.  Stars & Scrubs does NOT work.  Nor does Civics.  What works is Stars & Civics.  In the past decade, only ONE team made the World Series with more than one bat posting an OPS+ under with 300 ABs during the season, (The 2004 BoSox, had Kapler and Reese). 
The very team you cite - the Angels, won it all in 2002 with a rotation *LED* by Wsahburn, (18-6, 3.15 ERA), backed up by Appier, Sele, Ramon Ortiz and the rookie Lackey.  They had ZERO starters breaking the 7-K per game threshold.  The offense that won it all didn't have one - not ONE guy with any shot at all at Cooperstown.  Brad Fullmer was the best bat for the team that year, (.888), Salmon (.883), Anderson (.871), Spezio (.807), and Glaus (.805).  That's 5 guys hitting .800 -- but it AIN'T a bunch of stars.  But THAT was the team that won.
Adding Vlad and Colon didn't get the job done.  Adding Hunter and Teixeira last year wasn't enough, either. 
Based on history, a team can have *ONE* weak hitting link - (OPS+ below 80), and still make the WS with one bat hitting above a 130 OPS+.  If you get two below 80 guys, then you MUST have two guys above 130 -- and the only team that managed to succeed with two bats below 80, happened to have two bats at 145+. 
Tampa had ZERO bats hitting above 130 OPS+ in 2008, and they made the series, (Vlad hit 130 and sat home).  The WhiteSox had Quentin hitting 148 - not in the series.  And Boston had Youkilis (143), and Drew (137) watching the games on TV. 
Of course, that ignores the pitching side completely.  But, in truth, EVERY AL rep in the last decade has had 1 or 2 guys posting 130+ OPS+ figures, (except Tampa).  But, there were a roughly equal number of 130 guys for the teams that didn't make it.  The big diff (offensively), was HOW MANY weak links were there.  The data suggests it is not how bad the one guy is -- but how many sub-par guys you have that is more important.
TODAY - the Mariner's offense has two bats over 130, (Branyan and Ichiro).  But, they have 4 positions in a 9-man lineup below the 80 OPS+ barrier. 
The Yankees didn't make the post-season in 2008.  They had AROD (150), Giambi (128), Abreu (120), Damon (118) all putting up great numbers.  Tons of stars, (though only one over 130).  But, they had TWO (2) positions under 80 (catcher - where Molina posted a 51 replacing Posada), and Melky (68). 
You are correct to plead for stars.  But, my position has been ORDER matters.  I believe the optimal approach is to FIRST remove the guys posting sub-80 OPS+ figures.  THEN, go after the star, (or spend the big bucks to retain him, if you've got him).  But, a "big bat" won't solve anything for Seattle, as long is there are 2 or more positions who cannot break that 80 barrier.
Having Maddux, Glavine and Smoltz in the rotation - and Chipper and Andruw and Sheffield in the lineup was STILL no guarantee of winning in the post-season.  All those trips, and one title.  Having the "Big Dogs" is nice.  It guarantees nothing.  Stylistically, I understand the allure.  But, baseball is the one sport where you CANNOT go to your star in crunch time.  This is why weak links are MORE critical in the playoffs.  How many rings did Barry win?

What you say is true.  But, this just kind of makes the whole stars/scrubs vs. civics argument silly, because it would seem everyone is actually on the same page.  I understand that some of the Worp/$ guys go overboard with their value rants -- but I believe even they appreciate that you've gotta pay SOMEBODY big bucks. 
From my point of view, the Bavasi era problem was not "caused" by Wash and Batista and Vidro salaries.  It was CAUSED because they started the process by sinking major dollars into Sexson and Beltre.  For awhile Sexson and Beltre were producing well enough -- but AFTER paying for them, there simply wasn't enough money left over to do better than the 8-10 million contracts on mid-level "scrub" FAs.
What I've been saying all along is if you spend the BIG money up front, then you've boxed yourself into a corner, where you HAVE to get stellar production out of your farm.  Your "cheap" players *MUST* produce 80+ OPS figures, else your stars don't matter.  Acquiring Vlad or Teixeira or whomever is the juicy FA of the day *BEFORE* you have a lineup filled with cheap guys producing 80-100 OPS+ figures doesn't fail because of the Worp/$ issues.  It fails because you can't get "reliable" talent on the FA market for cheap. 
Yes, there are bargains like Branyan available.  But, they are available because they are NOT "reliable".  It is those very guys that waver between 90-100 OPS+ that can either make or break your season -- because a down year and you're doomed, an up year and you're looking great.  But, picking .725 hitting guys really does cost significant money on the open market. 
Just because 5 (of 30) managers snag a guy for a cool million who posts a .790 OPS doesn't mean that this is a good plan.  The other 25 managers were all hoping for the same from their dumpster diving.  But if 4 or 5 of 6 DON'T deliver, it's bad planning.  This year's club is producing offense almost identical to 2008.  But, this year, the club has a great 1B, Ichiro is having a monster season, and the CF import has an OPS over .800.  The club had ONE guy hit .800 in 2008.  So, why aren't they any better?  Because in 2008, the club only had 3 (of 9) positions hitting under an 80 OPS+ for the season: 1B (68), RF (79), and DH (58). 
Currently, the club has 4 positions below my "scrub" line: CA (64), 3B (66), SS (66), LF (66).  The decline in those spots has negated the gains at the above 3 positions.  What I think isn't completely appreciated is that the 4 positions that are posting "scrub" lines have all suffered from injuries.  Joh went down, Beltre was playing hurt and is gone, Endy got hurt, (and left with exactly an 80 OPS+).  YuBet's decline is the only one that cannot be reasonably blamed on health issues.  But, guys posting 80-100 OPS+ numbers aren't reliable. 
If the club extends Branyan, then it's got 4 decent bats for 2010, (1B, 2B, CF, RF).  With the injury issue, the odds of getting a cheap extension for Beltre have probably gone up.  If healthy, he gives the club 5 bats that can be counted on, IMO.  Catcher, Short, LF and DH become the questions for 2010, (assuming those two extensions).  Without that assumption, the club has 6 spots to fill.  You simply CANNOT fill six spots with out LOTS of money and get "reliable" talent.  And, when fishing for the undervalued, you also are NOT going to roll Yahtzee on your selections.
If you sink big bucks into a Teixeira, and then scrounge for the other 3 slots - IMO, you've wasted your money, because you cannot afford to fail twice, (and that includes having ANY of your re-signed talent swoon).  Remember, two guys under the 80 OPS+ figure, and you're pretty much out of the WS picture.  This is why I say - you try to fill your roster with 9 guys who ALL can manage to beat 80 OPS+ and *THEN* you find the best place to swap out for a star.  But, it ain't an easy thing to do, when talent changes every year.  Trying to hit that window of opportunity is incredibly difficult, and is made easiest by STARTING with a bunch of 25 year olds that you can control for several years on the cheap.  (The Florida model).
 

Doc, I've played ROTO.  I've played FP leagues.  I've played Sims.  But ROTO is so far removed from reality that it surprises me that you continue to use it as an examplar, (unless you're playing in a 14-team AL only league).  But, if it is SOOOO easy to get those 90 OPS+ players, (as you suggest), why can't EVERY team do it?
In 2008, the Ms had only THREE (3) positions under 90 (1B, RF, DH).  They fixed ALL THREE of those, (which supports your position), except that CA, 3B, SS and LF all four went from above 90 to under 90.  THAT is what I'm talking about.  That is *NORMAL*. 
SOME cheap pickups will work.  But absolutely, positively nobody has a 100% success rate plugging in cheap retreads.  Yes, applaud Tampa for snagging Navarro and Pena and Gross and Hinske in 2008.  They managed to cover the collapse of Gomes.  But, this year, Navarro is posting a 51, his backup is posting a 63, and Burrell at the moment is posting a .688 OPS for an even 80 OPS+, while Upton has had a rough season and is at 82. 
The STANDARD ups and downs of production from 9 positions is what makes it so difficult to stay in contention.  Boston this year has gotten a wonderful cheap payoff in Nick Green.  But Ortiz' bat goes MIA for a couple of months, so today he's at only an 85.  But, that 85 is enough to put the entire lineup over my minimum standard - and Boston sits in first. 
Seattle picks up Wilkerson for real cheap, but he bombs.  Atlanta pays 7 million for Kotsay who posts a 99 for them.  But, when he heads to Boston, he's back in the 60s.
I'm thrilled with what Jack has done so far.  But, he wasn't able to solve the problems with the MI.  His cheap choices for DH have been a roster-squeezing encumbrance all season.  His solution at LF was barely serviceable - and the situation became dire with the first injury - and catcher remains an offensive black hole.  Jack doesn't get to play the game with 100% of the players and only 80% of the teams. 
The trade-off for "cheap" players is that they are *SHORT TERM* cheap.  Branyan is a 1-year cheap guy.  How cheap will he be next year?  If lucky, Branyan next year becomes that very mid-level salary that you dislike.  Most ROTO leagues only retain a tiny portion of their rosters, which is fine.  It keeps things interesting.  Jack doesn't have that luxury.  ROTO contracts are *ALL* single-season contracts. 
In the majors, the typical standard is 2/3 of a roster returns each year - no matter how good or bad it was.  Of the 25 primaries, somewhere around 16 are coming back, whether you want them or not.  How many Keeper leagues have 16 keepers?  If you play in a 14-team AL-only keeper league with 16 keepers, and secret bidding, then I'll pause and reconsider my position. 

I think you've hit on something here.  The USSM guys seem to be operating with a very GM focussed paradigm.  If I wanted to evalute who was the most innovative creative bad ass GM, I'd toss them 50 million dollars and see if they could win 90.  What Tampa did last year, from the perspective of evaluating the virtues of a GM was far more impressive than taking a 180 million payroll team and winning the world series.  However, most fans don't care about how creative, innovative, or tactically brilliant a GM is, they just want to win a world series, or make the playoffs. That said, and as I've hinted at before, I think this is just part of the story.  I wonder if it's an accident that USSM seems to be driven by novel technocratic expertise of a group of specialists (read SABRmetricians) who are single-mindedly focussed on empirically demonstrable and testable results.  In contrast, DOV has more respect for things like "tradition" and "gut instinct". These different attitudes seem to me, at least, to mirror different strands of political thought that are, quite frankly, not very well hidden on either site.

I don't have a lot of experience BEING the Big Dog, but I can attest to the effect that the Big Dogs can have on a team.
 
I wrestled in high school and we had the best 178-275 wrestlers in southwest washington.  A couple of state champs and every guy in there placed multiple times in state competition, as well as two of them having gone on to national level competition and placed in the top ten at their weights.  So they were the Big Dogs.
In wrestling you get a certain number of team points based on how dominant your victory is.  A simple decision (less than 7 point lead at the end of the individual match) gives 3 points, a major decision (8-14 point advantage) gives 4 team points, a technical fall (a lead of 15 points at any point in the match results in a mercy-style victory) gives 5 points and a pin earns 6 team points.
 
Our guys were so confident in our Big Dogs that nobody worried about their performances at the lower weights.  We knew that we only had to keep it within 20 points by the time we got to the Big Dogs, and we'd win the meet.  This might sound like it would make guys complacent, but it had quite the opposite effect.  Guys at the lower weights felt like they could really rely on their strengths, so if a guy is really good at high-risk throws, he would employ those tactics freely, rather than playing it conservative and limiting his strengths.  And if a guy knew he was overmatched in an earlier match, maybe by a former state champ, he felt all the confidence in the world that all he had to do was not get pinned, and he'd be doing his job for the team.  Thsi resulted in some absolutely incredible matches, and these matches led to many of the guys at the lower weights gaining confidence, and they went on to become state champions themselves.
And so on, and so on.  Analysts and statgeeks (of which I am a padawan) often cannot understand this concept, since real, honest-to-goodness man to man competition isn't easy to participate in nowadays.  But winning breeds winning, especially if talent is equal.  You need a minimum amount of talent to be champions, but often what pushes a group up to the next level is the culture surrounding it.
 
Great read, as always.

Like all of us, Matt's far from flawless, but I suspect he wears all of his flaws on his sleeve, and intellectual smugness definitely isn't part of the decor.
It's perfectly acceptable to be sharp, not so much to be smug.

Politics should remain what it is, baseball is baseball.  I don't participate when Doc gets into the neo-con stuff, but I wouldn't value his unique perspective differently because of it.  I don't participate period with USSM but I don't hold their ultra-liberal filter against them.  
What I hold against all people is being a jerk, and for that, USSM doesn't get a pass.  They can line up all the Positive People apologists that they want, but one is wholly responsible for his words and deeds.  Its one thing to try the talk radio shtick of throwing out what amounts to a stupid trade idea, its quite another to lambaste folks who rightfully question its validity.  That attitude, (and I can tell you, for sure) cost Dave ten grand last fall, one would think he would learn just a small lesson.  Dish it out, take it, its a simple equation.  
Thanks Doc, I don't always agree with you, and have definitely been rude in the past when defending points, but you have always welcomed discussion and you don't insist on the rules, good for you.  

I find LL's comments to be one of the funniest corners of the internet.

Both left and right are concerned with the pursuit of truth (or Truth, if you prefer. Hell, I'm a philosopher I'm happy with TRUTH), provided you exclude the extreme fringe of leftist relativist academics and right wingers who unquestioningly and unreflectively embrace religious doctrine and won't even engage with contrary evidence.  Personally I think far too much attention has been paid to each of these groups, and that people who don't care about the truth can be safely ignored in debates (what else would we be discussing, if not what's true?). Methodologically, though, rightists have more respect for traditions as mechanisms for the production of knowledge than do leftists.  (and i'm purposely avoiding the terms liberal and conservative here because I don't think that they have any clear meaning in contemporary American politics (to see this just consider how the republican party, an ostensibly conserrvative group, seems to be very concerned about economic "liberty" at the expense of other values.)