bukie

Agreed. SABR statistics aren't intended to replace scouting observations, merely to supplement them with an objective analysis. I wish there were more splits and statistics available pertaining to specific pitch types, and how hitters react to them. There is more available on pitch location, but a high and inside fastball is completely different than a hanging curveball on the inner half.

I would guess that he re-signs with the Cubs for 3-5 mil as a reliever, unless someone is willing to pay a large chunk more than that for him to be a starter/closer somewhere.

Few would. But is Derosa really making that much? $4.75, and $5.5m the next two years. Not "that much" but a significant enough chunk. In my mind he was Todd Walker cheap. Well, he's making about as much as Jones is. Of the two, which is of more value to the team?

I always have the page open, but I'm generally too busy to contribute more than a post or two a day.

And would St. Louis find a way to cough up money for ARod? Oh God, there goes that nervous twitch again.

I'll try to explain one common sabermetric without using too many acronyms: OPS is a good example of a common SABR statistic ("sabermetrics" actually comes from the Society for American Baseball Research). Its value is that it contains a measurement of reaching base (OBP) and a measurement of hitting for power (SLG), two of the most important aspects of hitting. However, it simply adds them (OPS = OBP + SLG), which means the statistic of OPS considers one point of OBP to be worth the same as one point of SLG. Now wait a moment, some would say, those two statistics aren't equivalent. Consider that a perfect OBP (getting on base every plate appearance) is 1.000, while a perfect SLG (getting a home run on every plate appearance) is 4.000. Of course, that's not so simple as 1 OBP = 4 SLG either, because a good OBP and a good SLG don't ever differ by a factor of 4 (even for Barry Bonds). So, a more accurate representation of can be found by multiplying OBP by 1.6-1.8, depending on the person you talk to, which adds value to the OBP portion to balance out the statistic. So, consider 1.6 as a multiplier for a second. That would equate a .400 OBP to a .640 SLG, which to me sounds about right. That's basically the mindset of the SABR community. Take the stats that exist and make them more accurate for individual representation. Very little of sabermetrics has to do with team-based performance.

They wrote it better than I: Sabermetrics Manifesto To put it simply, sabermetrics is simply an attempt to acquire objective knowledge about baseball through facts, or statistics. It looks at only things that can be completely quantified, and it looks to try to quantify things that can't (the "little things", so to say). Sabermetric stats are an attempt to measure the complete value of an individual. No statistic is perfect, so the best statistics are those that minimize flaws. Most of sabermetrics is focused on hitting, as ERA for pitching is a fairly accurate enough measure of individual ability. Since things like runs, RBI, and wins are largely dependent on others, they are regarded minimally as is, in favor of other statistics. Also, counting stats are problematic because, obviously, the more chances, the higher count (on average). Stuff like Win Shares exist to try to compare players from different eras and doing different things (hitting, pitching, fielding) as accurately as possible. EDIT: I will say, however, that my biggest criticisms of most sabermetrics is that they undervalue the strikeout as an out (basically by passing it off as the exact same as any other type of out for a hitter, but oddly they value it more for pitchers), and how they pass off anything specifically unexplainable as "luck", when it's simply a combination of immeasurable factors.

That Juice Williams is a pretty solid RB.

Worth very little until all the games are "connected", meaning that every team can be linked to every other team through games. Until then the predictive values are partially based on last year's information. Of course, considering that, I'm surprised Illinois is as high as it is. That rating looks like a basketball poll with Missouri, Illinois, Kansas, Kentucky, Cincinnati, etc.

Computer ratings are likely not much better at this point in the season. Sagarin's BCS ratings (ELO-CHESS): 1. LSU 2. South Florida 3. Missouri 4. South Carolina 5. California 6. Ohio State 7. Illinois 8. Boston College 9. Virginia Tech 10. Mississippi State 11. Arizona State 12. West Virginia 13. Kansas 14. Connecticut 15. Oregon 16. Cincinnati 17. Auburn 18. Kentucky 19. North Dakota State (yes, they are 1-AA) 20. Indiana 21. Florida 22. Florida State 23. Purdue 24. Virginia 25. Wisconsin 26. Oklahoma 27. USC

The chances of action tonight have just gone up exponentially.

I hope ND wins, so at least my wife can be happy about something today.

Heck, Missouri could be a top 10 team by the end of the night.

I'm curious if OSU will pick up some #1 votes if they continue to throttle Purdue.

Because they're Stanford.

It's odd that I can actually watch and enjoy every Illinois game, mostly because my expectations have been so low. All I ask of them is to be in every game in the 4th quarter. So far they've done that and then some. One more win for bowl eligibility, so hopefully they can pick that up. EDIT: So, think Illinois sneaks into the top 25 next week? Gotta figure at the very least they'll replace Purdue if they lose.

Yay for the Illini, salvaging what would otherwise be a very depressing week of sports.

So glad the Cubs were able to use Kendall tonight to prevent Hill from blowing up.

The Cubs might as well just let Wood hit for himself. Use the pinch hitters for the regulars, the ones that can't hit.

So help me if the Cubs win this thing with a grand slam in the 9th and pull me back in, I will never forgive them.

And another hard-hit at-em ball.

Maybe Jones can hit into a DP and the umps can just count an out towards next inning.

I can't believe DeRosa swung at that. Even if it's a strike, you can do nothing with that pitch except roll it over to the left side, unless you're Soriano. I'm not even mad anymore, this is just amazing.

What I'm most impressed with about Illinois is that the teams they've played haven't really been patsies (aside from Western Illinois). Syracuse is apparently an average Big East team, Missouri could win the Big 12, and Indiana and Wisconsin have their only Big Ten losses against Illinois, with a previously ranked Penn State as the other win. I just hope they don't lay eggs against the less highly regarded teams on their schedule.