bmkhawk

Haluska can match up with Randle just fine.

North Carolina.

But, logically speaking, if he put the ball in play twenty more times on the road than he did at home over roughly the same amount of at-bats...wouldn't it be likely that his OBP on the road would be a bit better than it was at home? 20 more balls in play is 20 more chances of a batted ball falling in there for a hit.

i'd be happy with the illini getting 11-12 wins and coasting into the tourneys feeling pretty good. i think if they beat MSU at breslin they'll win the conference. You might be right. However, that Iowa/IL game in Assembly Hall will certainly be a big game for both teams. If Henderson can shut down Brown again...Iowa will certainly have a shot. That's a tall task though.

yep, and tucker did pretty well but was matched by randle all-around. what's your point? I'm just saying that Tucker was double and triple teamed quite a bit that game. All that being considered, Tucker had a pretty good game. That said, Wisky looks to be in a little bit of trouble with their new lack of depth at the post.

Well, I don't know where you thought I was insulting you, but if you saw it that way...I apologize. Now, let's move past this spat and look forward to our two teams having a great race down the stretch. Personally, I don't like Iowa's chances. Although the schedule has given them quite a break. Out of the four teams they only play once, they get/got OSU and Michigan at home and NW and PU on the road. Big break. However, if Horner can start making 3s again at a 40% clip, that will give them a big shot in the arm.

YESYESYES process, not results. That's all well and good...and I agree with that mantra. However, that being said...isn't that a mantra that supports looking at the reasoning behind why Sisco was left off of the 40 man roster and not calling it a bad move simply because of his subsequent success with the Royals? I mean, people can't use that saying when it supports their "side" of the matter and then ignore it when it supports the other, can they? I mean, isn't that what is commonly referred to as "having your cake and eating it too?" No. having your cake and eating it too would be when someone asks "honest" questions so they can bait people into pointless arguments. Oh, stop it. It *is* an honest question. He had poor numbers prior to having been kept. He was obviously kept because of his "tools" and in his subsequent two years, he started really putting things together. I was interested in hearing what the sabermatrician's views on placing him on the 40 man roster were. It's an interesting discussion in my mind. And for all the times that Hendry gets ripped around here, I thought it would be interesting to take a look at a move that worked out well. What "pointless arguments" have I spurred in this thread?

YESYESYES process, not results. That's all well and good...and I agree with that mantra. However, that being said...isn't that a mantra that supports looking at the reasoning behind why Sisco was left off of the 40 man roster and not calling it a bad move simply because of his subsequent success with the Royals? I mean, people can't use that saying when it supports their "side" of the matter and then ignore it when it supports the other, can they? Isn't that what is commonly referred to as "having your cake and eating it too?"

i think that's paranoia. i think it's (to use an andy dufresne reference, and please don't take offense) obtuse of you to take issue with it. Now why would I take offense to someone using a word to describe me that means "lacking of quickness of perception or intellect"? I don't know.... What I *really* find interesting is that me taking a bit of offense to your comment about me maybe not knowing that Killingsworth is a post-up player is "paranoia", but you thinking that Chocolate Milk's question to you asking if you had seen Alando Tucker play is a "ridiculous" and "meant to be insulting" comment? Not sure I have the ability to reconcile your two stances there. Then again, maybe I am being "obtuse" again. Like I said...why are you so on edge in this discussion? You do know that you can have a civil conversation about sports even if people disagree with you, right? By the way, Randle was certainly not without aid in his efforts to contain Tucker.

What didn't they see in Sisco that other did? The fact that Cedeno was protected does not validate anything. Even a blind dog finds a bone every once in a while. The recent past suggests that Hendry has done a terrible job of managing the 40 man roster. It's not just Sisco but many others as well. I wish the search was available b/ce we've discussed this ad nauseum. Is it really that difficult to give credit where credit is due? As for Sisco, at the rate he was going with for the Cubs, he wasn't progressing. He had bad work habits and was overweight. While the talent was there, his attitude was not. I can certainly see why they didn't think that he would be able to stick on a major league roster last year. Being exposed to the draft might have been the best thing for him. All indications show that he used that experience to put a chip on his shoulder and gain some focus. We'll see how he does the next few years...to see if he does or does not revert back to his old form.

edit

You are quite on edge in your replies. What gives? You act like I am saying that Randle is a bad defender or something. I'm not. But, if making thinly-veiled insults is your only means of retort or discussion, then more power to you. What I *am* doing is questioning your statement that randle "always draws the other team's best offensive threat". It's simply not true. I think it is fairly obvious that IU's best offensive threat is Killingsworth. For whatever reason, Randle didn't draw that matchup. As for guard meaning point guard or whatever...does it really matter? You said he drew the other team's best offensive threat...that encompasses every single position on the court. Like I said...had you said he always drew a matchup with the other team's best wing...then that would be accurate. And besides, is not giving up 20 points all year really that big of a deal? I don't think Iowa has given up 20 points to a scorer more than 4 times all year (just a guess).

Or at least for those who give sabermetrics a heavy lean over "tools scouting" or however you want to describe the other end of the spectrum. And yes, I understand that most probably see a somewhat even mix of the two as ideal...but this is more a question for those who would base their decisions as a hypothetical GM primarily on the statistics. So, my question is... Would you have added Ronny Cedeno to the 40 man roster as Hendry did after the 2003 season?

yes he is Zook always gets it done come signing day. It's game days that he struggles with.

I don't remember me claiming that Henderson always drew the other team's best offensive player either. What a stupid analogy to make.

i think that randle will shut tucker down. I would think that pretty unlikely. Especially considering the fact Weber said he was giving Randle a "Crash course in post defense." He's likely to get in foul trouble on the road anyway. If Tucker scores under 20 I'd consider it a job well done by Illinois. that would be a first, seeing as how nobody has scored 20 on randle yet, and he always draws the opposing team's best offensive player. Even if that player is a guard? Somehow I doubt it. you must be kidding. You think I am crazy for doubting that they would put him on a dominant point guard? You already backtracked regarding them putting him on Killingsworth. I certainly understand him always drawing the other team's best wing player, but I doubt you see him on a dominant 1 or 5.

PSU isn't all that bad this year. They almost beat Iowa in State College and gave MSU a run in Breslin. Purdue and NW will likely be easy, but I can see PSU giving WIsky some trouble.

I don't know if anything this year on the road in the big 10 will be an "easy win" for anyone.

Now there's an accurate basis for an opninion on Alford, but one that I will also disagree with in a way. Alford was not exactly overmatched when he was hired -- in fact his first recruiting class was top 5 at the time. The problem came where some rumblings came out that certain people were unhappy/treated differently/lied to, and long story short, it's really gone downhill from there. I can think of 2 players off the top of my head, and because of the dissent of a couple, now he is overmatched. Haluska grew up a Hawkeye fan, and we couldn't land him. Horner and Brunner didn't need to be recruited, they had committed when they were 6 or something. Nobody saw Hansen ever getting significant playing time. Henderson didn't have too many people knocking on his door, as I recall. Yada, yada. Tom Davis wasn't exactly the best at recruiting in-state either. Heinrich, Collison, and LaFrentz being 3 of the more recent big examples. Collison is a very poor example. It is a definite possibility that Collison would have came to Iowa had Davis not been canned and had that awful lame-duck situation.

i think that randle will shut tucker down. I would think that pretty unlikely. Especially considering the fact Weber said he was giving Randle a "Crash course in post defense." He's likely to get in foul trouble on the road anyway. If Tucker scores under 20 I'd consider it a job well done by Illinois. that would be a first, seeing as how nobody has scored 20 on randle yet, and he always draws the opposing team's best offensive player. Even if that player is a guard? Somehow I doubt it.

Stop listening to B&B before you form your Alford opinions. If you dislike him, it should be solely for the reason that he is a bad coach. I dislike him because he defended Pierre Pierce and even went so far as to say he was the victim in his first sexuall assualt charge. The man was the national president of the FCA when he was in college, yet he sided with a rapist over a real victim. The fact that he has destroyed Iowa's program I like hjim for. I realize you guys are good this year, but after this year you guys will be really horrible. Find me where he said Pierre was the vicitim. Not once did that take place. He also never sided with Pierre over the victim. I also doubt that you know what actually took place, but it surely wasn't rape. There are a few reasons why the female and her family were so willing to settle so that the details didn't go public. Also how can you say we're good this year but will be "really horrible" afterward? You were on this board this summer saying that our lack of success the past few years wasn't Alford's fault, it was because we had no talent. So first of all how are we good without any talent this year and why will be worse if we aren't losing any talent? And who can forget your guarantee after the '03 football season that Iowa football would take a big step backwards because we were losing Gallery and Russell. Of course we improved by 2 games between the two years, but hey who cares. Yeah I admitted I was wrong about your football. They have however, regressed back to the middle of the Big Ten. Two big ten titles in four years, four straight New Years Day or after bowl games, and tied for third in the leauge this year constitutes "back to the middle of the big 10"? They will be right back in the big 10 title hunt next year, that I can assure you.

OSU is the only contender that has lost at home (to MSU) in the big 10 if my research is correct. Whoever wins this league is going to have to win out at home and split on the road. It is actually possible that the winner could have five losses. I don't like Iowa's chances unless Horner gets miraculously healthy and sheds that brace that makes him even slower than he normally is. They need more offense out of him than what he has given since he has returned.

Which poor trades? Let's also not forget to add that one of the trades brought in pretty good prospect/rookie in the form of Matt Murton.

Good thing that Hendry addressed the lead off postiion, huh?

Instead of wasting your thoughts away on pipe dreams, how 'bout you come up with some possible scenario where the Cubs could actually acquire those two without giving up some key component for next year's team? I don't see the Cubs just sitting around with an extra Coco Crisp to throw the Red Sox way and please don't suggest Patterson. So many fans here seem insistant on focusing on the "why not" rather than the "how"...no wonder so many have a warped sense of reality. Of course, playing video game GMs have that impact sometimes.... Thanks for taking a personal shot at dkwg at the end there. That was uncalled for. Oh please. Don't be so overly sensitive. Anyone who thinks that the Cubs could have gotten Marte and Shoppach without messing up the team the Cubs are going to put on the field this year is in a fantasy land. It's not hard to pull of these trades in video games...maybe that is a factor in leading to this warped perception of reality. "Personal shot"? Give me a break.