bukie

OTL = OverTime Losses, any time a team loses in overtime or a shootout. Those are worth 1 point, and a win is worth 2 points. I think it's a little dumb, because then for some reason overtime games are worth more points overall than regulation games. I think that a few years back, the NHL awarded 3 points for a win, 2 points for an OT win, 1 point for an OT loss, and 0 points for a regulation loss, but that ended up being far too many things to keep track of, and really made the standings cluttered.

I think someone mentioned that earlier, or at least I remember making a joke about the Big Ten finally finding a way to make their brand of basketball exciting.

I think Wood is a more likely candidate to repeat last year's production than Dempster.

Well, Young is better than Jeter, and most of the good fielding SS were in the NL this year. Mike Aviles would've probably been a better choice. Reputation reared its ugly head in the OF for the AL. The best defenders were likely Carlos Gomez, Franklin Gutierrez, and Carl Crawford. Ichiro wasn't a bad pick, but the others were...not so hot. 1B-2B-3B-C were all solid picks.

every time a ss goes deep in the hole (that's what she said) some announcer calls it a jeter-play it's like like one highlight just made everyone [expletive] I think I recall seeing an article quantifying that Jeter actually is very good going to his right. The problem is that his range to his left is utterly atrocious. That would confirm -- in part -- people's subjective perceptions that he makes a lot of good plays in the hole, while still covering less ground than any other SS in baseball. I wish I could remember where I saw it. The truth is, at least in 2008, that Jeter plays a very shallow shortstop because of a weak arm. So, the plays that he actually makes are the really short choppers that most SS don't (because they're playing deep). However, anything hit sharply that isn't right at him is going through at an alarming rate. Remember, defense isn't just about preventing errors, it's about making outs on balls hit in your area.

Actually, all 3 OF GG are CFs, oddly enough. So is Chris Young. Young definitely considered consideration also. McLouth, oddly enough, comes up last among all major league CFs in RZR and +/- rating. And I can't imagine what the hell GG voters were thinking at first base, when Berkman and Pujols were pretty significantly better than anyone else (well, and Teixiera, but he was traded to the AL).

The only really bad choices are Gonzalez at first and McLouth in the OF (considering Beltran was already a CF, and much better). Fred Lewis, Randy Winn and Kosuke Fukudome probably deserved OF consideration.

The Fielding Bible is the site the article was referring to. Two good indicators there for Jeter being awful: Jeter vs. Everett (under Fielding Bible Excerpts), and the Three Year Register statistics (in which fielding data was compiled over a 3 year period).

According to a panel led by Bill James, "probably the worst fielder in baseball, at any position."

Then trading away the benefit from that Brand trade (Chandler) for nothing but wasted cap space was really what compounded the problem.

Dodgers?

I can't count the sarcastic statements in this thread on two hands. Again, great post, full of substance. And where did I say anything like that? If anything I made some vague reference to HILL not adjusting to big league hitters..not vice versa. Great post, full of substance. Hill was dominant for 1.5 years in the minors and 1.5 years in the majors. Then he somehow "failed to adjust"...to what? How did the big league hitters suddenly force him to adjust? Did they somehow psych him out into throwing wildly? Maybe if you actually used that 8 pound lump on top of your neck, you'd notice that not all the posts are sarcastic, and you've yet to provide a single logical reason for your assertion.

USC Texas Oklahoma Ohio St. Michigan Penn St. Florida St. Florida LSU Alabama alabama alabama alabama alabama alabama alabama alabama alabama alabama alabama Alabama could never be as low as 10th.

So, after tonight's game, there will only be 4 teams in the NFL with fewer losses than the Bears (Tennessee, NY Giants, Carolina, Wash/Pit winner). That seems amazing to me, considering how mediocre they've played so far and how they let 3 winnable games get away. Of course, there are also only 4 teams below .500 in the NFC, so a lot of teams are tightly bunched this year.

No need to be mean to dew.

Apparently the league adjusted to Hill by....psyching him out into throwing wildly?

Not if they tie.

I'm just saying that I think PSU struggles less against OSU at home in this case. Either way, it was the only close game PSU has played this year didnt i tell you guys the third week of the season to watch out for penn state? i dont think ive ever said penn state wasnt good. i dont think they matchup well against USC or Florida (no one really does), but Ive said I think they can beat the top Big XII teams. Again, I havent really been saying the Big Ten is down this year either...its not. The down side to the Big Ten is there really isn't a distinction between the 3rd best team and the 8th best team. So, though there are probably only two top 25 teams, there are 8 top 40-45 teams. Although, since MSU actually pulled out that victory Saturday, maybe they are the third best team. Well, that, and Michigan really blows.

What sucks for Texas is if they still make the Big XII championship game, are ranked #3 (behind #1 Alabama and #2 Penn State) they will face #10-15 Missouri and will win. No one will be all that impressed with the win. They already knew they would beat Missouri (who has been exposed quite a bit of late and may even stumble before then). If Florida's sitting there at #4 and kicks Alabama's ass like they're supposed to, they take out the #1 team in impressive fashion and will in all probability jump Texas. I agree completly, I think Texas needs to have a decent little cushion over Florida going into the Championship Weekend to have a shot. Pretty much all of the tie-breaker scenarios favor Texas should Tech lose one game, so I think they still have a good shot to get in. Unless we have only two undefeated teams at the end of the regular season the BCS is primed to take another very large hit this year, Texas might just be one of the sacrificial lambs. I'm almost rooting for what would be the most disastrous BCS result ever: an undefeated Penn State not playing in a championship game, while 1-loss Big 12 and SEC champions do. PSU then beats a 1-loss USC in a meaningless Rose Bowl.

I don't doubt that the Big 12 is the best conference this year, but what is the Big 12's best non-conference win? There's got to be something better than Missouri over Illinois, right?

Ouch, they left too much time on the clock... ;)

actually if texas scores here and then kicks the extra point, and it ends up being a one point longhorn win, then the red raiders should not receive a loss, since the extra point doesn't really count for anything and the game is really tied and going to overtime. man, this is so confusing all close games should just be tossed out, a win is the same as a loss, a loss is the same as a win only blowouts will count in mephball i'm okay with that, penn state only has one non-win (ohio st game) No, that counts, since Ohio State had no business being in that game. Ole Miss is 2 plays away from being undefeated, though, and it was a miracle Florida didn't make a 2-point extra point to beat them.

Or, more simply, a system that attempts to be objective based merely on point differential is hugely flawed in a sport where point differential is meaningless to the championship format in place, and you only get a 9-game sample size. It's a lot more subjective to debate how good a team is than an objective point differential system, just as it's a lot more subjective than wins and losses.

That's not the point though, which is apparently what you are failing to understand. Whether or not they are accurate is completely irrelevant. What matters is that they, well, matter. That is the incentive, and that is what makes the argument as to what team is the best largely subjective.

Actually, in all BCS-accepted computer ratings, all that matters is winning and losing. How much a team won or lost by doesn't matter at all. Of course, that only covers 1/3 of the actual BCS rankings. The other 2/3 are covered by a coaches poll, in which what conference a team plays in matters about as much as how well a team plays in its games, and both of which matter far less than winning or losing a game. The other third? The Harris poll, which might actually be the rating which depends on scoring the most, as it's designed to be a statistically broad representation of the entire NCAA. It's still people voting, which is far less objective than running the numbers. So, in essence, a team's sole goal in a year is to make the championship game. To do that, all that really matters is to win every game. Whether a team wins 13-6 or 45-3, all that matters to conference standings and computer ratings is whether or not it was a W or an L. Conservatively, 90% of what matters to the other 2/3 of the BCS ratings is whether or not it was a W or an L. Which, really, means that for all intents and purposes all that a team should be concerned with in a game is a W or an L, since that's what will determine who plays for the championship, and who is watching. As to how that affects which team is actually better or worse, to take a sole sample of scoring differences is inherently flawed as a model, since that is not the goal of any team. Sure, better teams are more apt to win by a greater margin, and blowout wins and close losses are better signs of a good team than close wins and blowout losses, but beyond a one point victory, it really doesn't matter to a college team in the grand scheme of things, so there's absolutely no incentive to run up any score.