bukie

Yeah, I figured this is where the fear came from, hence why I don't buy that there's any significant logic behind the complaints. Now lets realize that Matt Garza isn't Mark Prior or Kerry Wood, both who failed for far more reasons than overuse. Wood never wanted to evolve as a SP, and faced the consequences of throwing all two of his pitches as hard as he could all the time. Prior, on top of being 5 years younger and only slightly above rookie status than Garza when he was worked like he was, also happened to collide with a player that year and then get hit with a line drive in the elbow the next year. It was a clusterf of bad things that shouldn't happen to pitchers. Believe it or not, there are pitchers out there who managed to survive two whole starts of 120+ pitches late in the season in their athletic primes. Maybe I'm just used to being coddled by Cubs management, then. Maybe throwing 120+ pitches in September isn't a rare thing, and teams do it all the time. Let's check... To this point, there have been 572 starts among all MLB teams (286 games, two teams each game). Of those 572 starts, a pitcher has gone over 120 pitches...just 8 times. 1.35% of the starts. Huh, well at least it's not just the Cubs then. Who else went over 120 pitches? - James Shields did, twice. The Rays are pushing hard for a playoff spot, though, so it's a little sensible. - Tim Lincecum did once and Madison Bumgarner did once. Again, pushing hard for a playoff spot. The other 4? Twice by Dempster, and twice by Garza. So maybe the other, what, 27 teams are just coddling their pitchers. You know, so they'll get maximum value out of them when needed. EDIT: In the name of full disclosure, if I set the limit at 120 instead of 121+, there are 3 additional starts: Roy Halladay, Cliff Lee and Bud Norris. So...yeah, 11 of 572 starts, with only 2 teams doing it that aren't in playoff contention.

Plus, it's not as if the last 15 years of team history was littered with pitcher arm injuries to their most promising pitchers due largely to overuse.

You'd be making a far more logical point if you could prove that these two whole starts have actually increased his chance for injury in any significant way. Last start didn't seem to bother him too much out there today. Every pitcher's arm has a finite amount of use in it. There's a fine, subjective line between regular use and overuse, and there's no need at this point to even toe the line. Even weirder that they've avoided 120 pitch starts the entire year, and then use him for two in a row when rosters are big enough to have even less of an excuse for it. But yes, your sample size of one start is conclusive proof in your favor.

I don't think anybody here had a problem with the legality of the hits on Cutler, merely the frequency.

Never heard of a rival not wanting to give up a milestone? It's not a big deal and I only point it out because I know there are Brewer fans reading this right now. A meaningless milestone that nobody will remember a year from now? No, I have not. It reminds me of that time in 1998 where the Cubs did everything in their power to prevent McGwire from breaking 61 HRs first.

That's "everything" you could have done? Maybe last year. But the dolt conveniently glosses over the fact that he ignored the 5 MAN POSITION GROUP for half a decade in the draft. It's 5 positions you have to fill. Occasionally spending an early pick on it isn't going to cut it. They have to overcompensate just to get back to a normal level of attention. It also doesn't help when your most recent 1st round OL pick comes in pre-injured and sucks. Carimi? I thought he had that injury in the past, not that they drafted him with the injury. Chris Williams.

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?