Dave Studenmund has written an article at The Hardball Times promoting their new Baseball Annual 2006, but of course as one of the authors, he's biased. Studes' article gives you a rundown on the contents in the article to which I have linked. But, my copy of the THT Baseball Annual 2006 has arrived. I spent some time paging through the book last night, including reading some of the essays and reviewing their statistics. Hats off to Studes and Aaron Gleeman for a fine effort. I recommend buying the book They've done some great things. Of course, there are reviews of the 2005 season, including the playoffs, using the types of tools you would expect from the guys at THT (graphs!). Their analysis of the 2005 season, including the playoffs provides an excellent resource for the coming years. They have a lot of stats, including stats on defense (yippee!). And in a move that I appreciate greatly, they have provided access to some of their stats online. (I won't tell how... buy the book.) Here's a link to get your copy.

Plus, they have a series of essays, tackling topics such as the upcoming collective bargaining agreement, what the Hall of Fame should be like, the business of baseball, etc. They even talk steroids, not in the wild-eyed way that you hear from the Thomas Boswells of the world, but they approach the subject using a much broader view. It should be a must read for anyone who wants to talk about steroids (or about baseball's long standing approach toward addressing problems).

Rob Neyer pitches in with a great essay on management mistakes, which could be applied directly to our 2005 Twins. Bill James pitches in with a couple of essays, including a great, evenhanded look at Bert Blyleven's career. The James article on Blyleven is great not only for his analysis, but for his methodology. For those of us who want to write about baseball, it's like a primer on how to research. For those of us want to read about baseball, it helps us to separate the wheat from the chaff (or half-baked crap, if you will).

Finally, Studenmund writes an article about defensive metrics. And it's as if he's writing his post right to me. I've been championing the Twins' high defensive efficiency for a while. "Studes" bursts my bubble by (a) shooting holes in the validity of defensive efficiency and (b) showing how the Twins in particular, did not play as well defensively as their defensive efficiency numbers show. Damn, I hate it when I'm wrong. Thanks Studes for giving me a facial like that! Actually, what he's done is provide more data to consider. As defensive metrics is an area in which I have a lot of interest, I am more than happy to get more information. (By the way, according to Studes, the Twins were about an average defensive team, but significantly better than last year. Thus, my point that this team was improved is still intact, and the idea that the defense was subpar is debunked.)

I'd be lying if I said I have read the whole thing. I've just started to go through it. I've read several of the essays and have skimmed the contents of the other sections. My criticisms would be that some of the writing is less than perfect grammatically, and from time to time a little better editing would make it look better (Aaron, drop me a line if you'd like a more detailed critique). But, these are small criticisms. This is a book by baseball enthusiasts, not English majors, and the substance of the book is there. No complaints about that.

Kudos to our guy, Aaron Gleeman. Your THT project has become something of which you can be proud. Your Baseball Annual 2006 was worth the money that I plunked down on it.