bukie

It makes perfect sense that Garza's two highest PC outings have been the last two he's pitched, since they've been so crucial to the Cubs scrambling to avoid 90 losses.

That's "everything" you could have done? They made offers to the two other best linemen available in FA, and both rejected better offers to return to their teams. Besides that, there weren't a whole lot of clear upgrades available in free agency this offseason. They let Kreutz walk. I have a tough time arguing they didn't do what they could this offseason. The big problem is that it should've never gotten to the point it was this offseason.

Isn't this the last home game in a meaningless season? Yes, so why have Garza throw 120 pitches? Grabow hasn't tossed batting practice in a while. You know Grabow pitched last night, eh? Yes, but he didn't even give up a run. That's hardly batting practice. Either him or whoever else they've got back at the end of the pen now. Berg, maybe?

I don't think the Brewers care at all that Castro is one hit shy of 200. Pitchers in general specifically try not to throw hittable pitches. In fact, throwing pitches outside the strike zone is, in general, a good way to get Castro out this year. Not this month, though.

Isn't this the last home game in a meaningless season? Yes, so why have Garza throw 120 pitches? Grabow hasn't tossed batting practice in a while.

If I'm Garza, I don't even take the bat off my shoulder. Also, why is Garza hitting, Quade?

103 pitches through 8 for Garza. I was kind of hoping he'd throw a few more that inning so Quade wouldn't for sure toss him out there for the 9th to get a meaningless complete game.

Matt Garza is basically David Price with worse fielding this year. Plus he has to make plate appearances, which hurts the overall WAR as well.

It's the last week in a meaningless season. Baker's only the #4 hitter because of all the call-ups playing today, so why not bring in DeWitt for an AB or two?

And I'm sure Silver would've gotten more results if he had just done analytics on the term "football", but since he was specifically looking for college data there had to be some way to differentiate interest between college and pro (and others).

Castro's K/BB ratio this month is really encouraging.

You're right, the word college would totally throw off the search and give me wrong results. "Chicago Cubs MLB major league baseball team 2011 schedule wrigley field" wouldn't throw off a search for the Cubs schedule either. Doesn't mean someone searches that way. And nowhere did I argue that analytics from the term "college football" would pick up every possible college football-related search. Just that the extra work involved in picking up more of the aggregate data isn't worth the difference it'd provide in the numbers, since it likely wouldn't outpace the assumed 10k-50k noise in the final numbers. Presenting the final numbers down to the individual may be a little optimistic on Silver's part, but it doesn't invalidate the entirety of the numbers presented, any more than the idea that since we don't know many Clemson fans, they couldn't be that popular.

You're right, the word college would totally throw off the search and give me wrong results. Why would you add unnecessary words? You're lying or not very smart. I wouldn't search Chicago Bears National Football League schedule. You wouldn't search New Mexico State College football schedule. You'd type in New Mexico State, and football would come up automatically and unless you were afraid of not having the schedule come up in the first selection you'd stop there. But you would not enter the word college for no good reason. It would be really freaking stupid. A search for New Mexico State in Google retrieves the government site first, the school site second, the athletics site third, and the football site 7th. Searching for New Mexico State football gives the football site first, 2011 schedule 3rd. Searching New Mexico State football schedule gives the 2011 schedule site first, no other schedules. Searching New Mexico State football schedule 2012 gives a site at the top with the thus-far announced 2012 schedule. The more specific a search is, the more likely the result you want comes at the top. And no, I probably wouldn't typically put the word "college" in there if I were searching for a specific school, but I'd certainly use it if I were looking for something generic to all schools, like apparel, TV schedules, bowl schedules, prior results, or stats.

Again, there are probably ways to get more exact numbers from analytics by checking results for each school's searches with "football", or by getting data on a variety of other terms. But, with the huge sample size he was getting, the results aren't going to be very meaningfully different in terms of gauging interest by location than going with a generic search term.

You're right, the word college would totally throw off the search and give me wrong results.

I was referred to NSBB. I've located other Cubs message boards by, you know, googling Cubs message boards or Cubs fan sites. I've found other decent sports fan sites/forums by googling for them too. Web developers spend hours upon hours improving their SEO specifically so they'll come up higher in google searches. Oh, and if I want New Mexico State's football schedule, I'd probably search "New Mexico State college football schedule", yes. Maybe with a specific year if I wanted, say, next year's schedule.

Yes, the thought that searching for the term "College Football" indicates an interest in college football is pure farce. I can only imagine the number of people who search "college football" and have no interest in it what so ever. I'm sure the majority of them are searching for "I have no interest in college football. Where are places I can go that have no college football?" Equating analysis of Google search results to AOL is akin to equating DIPS to tobacco. EDIT: And yes, doing market analysis based on Google search results is a real thing, and widely done. How do you think Google makes money? Don't be obtuse, that term is extremely vague and far, far, far from being inclusive. Maybe, maybe it's a good guess of casual fandom. But take a poll here, or any site where college football fans gather. How many of them do you think searched that term in the last 12 months? I'd say 5% at the absolute maximum. Considering all the search permutations that include the phrase "college football" I'd wager it's a lot more than that. Even for someone who already knows of a forum to post at and data sites to get reliable statistics, it's not uncommon to search for things like "college football tickets" or "2011 college football schedule", which pulling up analytics based on searching for "college football" will include. Could it be better to aggregate searches on other terms like "NCAA football", or "Division 1 football" or even just "football"? Maybe so, but "college football" is a general enough term to pick up a fair aggregate with enough data, and on a sample size like the entire United States over a time period of a year, it's probably a fair estimate. As far as his estimates going to the individual for schools, it's more precise than he probably should be, but estimating within, say, a +/- 10k or even 50k error is probably fair.

Ok boys, let's shut him down for the year.

Yes, the thought that searching for the term "College Football" indicates an interest in college football is pure farce. I can only imagine the number of people who search "college football" and have no interest in it what so ever. I'm sure the majority of them are searching for "I have no interest in college football. Where are places I can go that have no college football?" Equating analysis of Google search results to AOL is akin to equating DIPS to tobacco. EDIT: And yes, doing market analysis based on Google search results is a real thing, and widely done. How do you think Google makes money?

Nate Silver is a god and his word is gospel. maybe there is a better way/approach, but I sure don't see anyone providing one. Not using google results for the term "college football"?? What is this AOL? If he'd used AOL data, then I'd be more apt to call it into question. Google search results are a pretty good read these days on people's interests. More so than TV audiences and ticket revenues.

Not enough teal, imo.

It's the poor man's Notre Dame.

Yes, if someone else had exposed themselves as ignorant and dismissive at parts of player evaluation, or if Hughes hadn't done those things, then the opinions would be different. Opinions of the Cubs would also likely be different if they currently had 95 wins too. How did have success prior to the Cubs? I'm sure those same traits will still there. Then the real question is, did the development game change that much the past 10 years, or did his skills change that much? The Cubs have had such little success from within in recent history that it's a wonder Hughes has lasted this long.

For a moment, I confused Gary Hughes and Pat Hughes, and was disappointed.

MN was one that jumped out at me. Other than you, I've never met a MN fan outside the state. Even if they have that many fans, how many are watching cfb (or the gophers)? The Minneapolis/St. Paul area is a good sized market on its own merit, though, and the fans there are largely hockey/football fans. The Vikings are probably the primary draw, but U of Minnesota is the only decent game in town as colleges go. But its not a decent game. Those fans aren't cfb fans (or not gopher fans anyway). It may not make logical sense, but even minimal sports fans out there are pretty crazy about the Gophers. I have a bunch of relatives in the area that follow no sports except the Gophers football and basketball (and Minnesota-Duluth hockey...I did say they were crazy).