bukie

So to change the subject, predict the rank of the following nine Cubs hitters by overall offense (say wOBA): Baez Bryant Heyward Montero Rizzo Russell Schwarber Soler Zobrist

I felt like two sentences on the subject was sufficient considering both the minimal impact and the exact same scenario already happened last year and yet here we are two pages later.

The Cubs would handle it exactly the same way they did last year when Montero got hurt. Ross would be the primary catcher and Schwarber would spot start.

Jonah Keri writes for SI now: http://www.si.com/mlb/2016/02/18/the-30-preseason-power-rankings

None of the statistical projections have them in the low to mid 90s except PECOTA. Vegas is not a stat projection. Steamer has them at 99, ZiPs has them at even more WAR so pending the baseline it could be even higher. Oh, thanks for letting me know Vegas isn't a stat projection. I believe these are Steamer based http://www.fangraphs.com/depthcharts.aspx?position=Standings http://claydavenport.com/projections/PROJHOME.shtml And be careful taking individual player WAR projections and adding them to a replacement level value to come up with a win total. It gets you close, but it's not perfect. Fair enough, was simply stressing predictions vs projections. As for WAR projections, accounting for playing time and optimizing for correct usage still gets you some ridiculous aggregates. 121-41 for reals.

Well, yeah, except most of the projections have them in the low to mid 90s, not 100. So they would need some positive variance overall to get to 100. None of the statistical projections have them in the low to mid 90s except PECOTA. Vegas is not a stat projection. Steamer has them at 99, ZiPs has them at even more WAR so pending the baseline it could be even higher.

I feel like a lot of people aren't really understanding the statistic projections clearly. Statistical projections nearly always predict slight regression in every player. Meaning, if every player on the Cubs regressed slightly towards replacement level, the Cubs would project to WIN 100 GAMES. Now imagine if some of the young players improve... I mean, predicting the Cubs to win 101 games isn't some pie-in-the-sky optimistic dream, it's a fairly conservative prediction. Optimism would be predicting 125 wins to set the winning percentage record.

I agree with all of this but I get the sense that the NHL will never go back to ending games in a tie. Your second suggestion seems fair and logical. Therefore the NHL will never do that either. I like the tie instead of the shootout. I'd like to see 3 points for a regulation win, 2 for an OT win, 1 for an OT loss, and one each for a tie if nobody scores in the 3 on 3 OT. That way teams that play for the tie are sacrificing points, not gaining them.

Trying to prove once and for all that all Canadian teams are interchangeable .

As of today, 7 of the bottom 9 teams in the NHL are all Canadian teams, and no Canadian team is in playoff position.

My younger brother is a defensive, healthy 26 year old making far less than 2.6 million. He's about as good a buy-low candidate as Segura.

24 teams into the Fangraphs ZiPS projection, here is the WAR projection comparison: Team C 1B 2B 3B SS LF CF RF DH HIT SP1 SP2 SP3 SP4 SP5 SP PEN PITCH Total Atlanta Braves 0 4 2 0 2 1 2 1 12 3 2 1 1 1 8 2 10 22 Kansas City Royals 3 2 0 3 2 3 4 2 2 21 3 2 2 1 0 8 3 11 32 Toronto Blue Jays 4 1 0 7 4 1 3 4 3 27 2 2 2 1 1 8 3 11 38 Philadelphia Phillie 2 -1 1 2 1 1 3 2 11 2 1 1 0 0 4 2 6 17 Cincinnati Reds 2 5 2 2 2 2 2 2 19 3 2 2 2 1 10 2 12 31 Pittsburgh Pirates 3 1 2 3 1 4 6 2 22 4 4 1 1 1 11 4 15 37 Texas Rangers 2 1 3 4 2 0 1 2 1 16 4 3 1 1 1 10 3 13 29 New York Yankees 4 2 2 3 2 2 2 0 2 19 3 3 2 2 0 10 5 15 34 Baltimore Orioles 2 1 2 6 1 1 4 -1 -1 15 2 2 2 1 1 8 4 12 27 Seattle Mariners 2 1 4 4 2 1 3 3 3 23 5 2 1 1 1 10 2 12 35 Boston Red Sox 2 2 3 1 3 1 3 5 2 22 5 2 2 2 1 12 4 16 38 Chicago Cubs 2 5 3 6 3 3 5 1 28 5 5 3 3 2 18 4 22 50 Cleveland Indians 3 1 3 1 4 3 1 2 2 20 4 4 3 1 0 12 3 15 35 Arizona Diamondbacks 2 5 1 2 2 3 4 0 19 5 3 2 2 1 13 2 15 34 Minnesota Twins 2 2 3 2 2 3 3 1 2 20 2 2 1 1 1 7 3 10 30 San Diego Padres 4 2 2 2 1 2 1 1 15 3 3 2 1 -1 8 3 11 26 New York Mets 4 3 3 3 2 3 3 3 24 4 4 3 2 1 14 2 16 40 Houston Astros 3 1 4 3 5 3 3 3 1 26 5 3 3 2 1 14 4 18 44 Los Angeles Dodgers 4 3 1 3 4 4 3 4 26 8 3 3 2 1 17 3 20 46 Detroit Tigers 3 4 4 2 2 4 1 4 1 25 3 3 2 1 0 9 3 12 37 St. Louis Cardinals 4 1 2 4 3 2 2 3 21 4 3 3 3 2 15 4 19 40 San Francisco Giants 8 3 3 4 4 0 2 2 26 5 4 3 1 0 13 2 15 41 Washington Nationals 2 1 2 3 1 1 2 7 19 6 5 3 2 2 18 4 22 41 Chicago White Sox 3 3 2 4 2 1 3 0 1 19 6 4 3 1 1 15 4 19 38

Honestly, the move that makes the most sense for Fowler would be to go to the White Sox.

I really wish the Cubs had bought "low" on Harper last year when he was disgruntled and the Nats thought he wasn't worth the trouble.

This is the first time the Blackhawks have trailed this year.

He's bad at SF. He'd been good at PF but the Bulls have about 5 PFs.

Iowa's been the best team in the B1G so far. They aren't a bad team. MSU lost to Wisconsin That was in Wisconsin. Iowa was the other home loss.

Iowa's been the best team in the B1G so far. They aren't a bad team.

ESPN is doing a series on "MLB 2.0", suggesting overhauls for if baseball was rebooted today. Suggestions include mandatory netting from dugout to dugout (which should be done anyway and would be easy), shortened mound visits (easy to do anyway), automatic strike zones (should be done yesterday), and elimination of the save statistic (a good idea, but for the wrong reasons thanks to Jayson Stark), which got me thinking...what five changes would you make to make baseball better? Here are my five: 1) Automated balls and strikes. The mere idea that people are tracking a statistic to show how good catchers are at cheating the rules should be evidence enough that this needs to be done. Give everyone the same strike zone at all times. Why is this so hard to enforce? 2) Put the DH in both leagues. I'm an NL purist as much as the next guy, but the rules need to be the same in both leagues as long as interleague games are a thing. Pitchers have too many injury risks to deal with already without being concerned about being beaned or injured on the basepaths (and having Dusty keep you in the game anyway). The only real difference in strategy is that the all-hit, no field player you keep around for PH duties gets to bat more often. Also, it allows managers to give everyday players a day off in the field but still keep their bat in the lineup. 3) Enforce time limits between pitches and innings, and limit time on mound visits and pitching changes. Nothing slows down the game like 3 pitching changes in an inning, so as long as one-out-guys are going to be a thing, make them get a move on when getting in the game. Strides towards removing slowdowns were made last year, and they need to keep going. 4) Eliminate pitcher wins, holds, and saves as collected statistics. Holds are pretty meaningless anyway, but wins and saves are the only stats in any sport that regularly control manager usage of players. Wins are beyond meaningless as an individual statistic, and people are finally starting to catch on to this fact. 5) Make it illegal for managers to leave the dugout...and don't force them to wear uniforms. Yes, the manager tirades can be fun, but for the most part it's stupid and holds up the game for 10+ minutes. If coaches in every other sport can stay off the field (except in Pittsburgh) then baseball coaches can manage as well.

Was that Kane's first career regular season hat trick?

Ryne Sandberg to join the Cubs as team ambassador, according to MLB.com. I think this is perfect. Lets Sandberg be a part of the organization without sabotaging the team.

Bulls had 101 offensive possessions tonight.

all joking a salad, Tim really needs to fix this glitch. Sign up for NSBB Premium to get the ability to post correctly.

I can see an argument for voting for neither Bonds nor Clemens (I don't agree with it). I can see an argument for voting for both Bonds and Clemens. There is no argument for voting for one and not the other.

Browns hire Paul DePodesta (yes that one) to be their Chief Strategy Officer.