Exile on Waveland

I can root for NE, since I'm pretty confident that the winner of the NFC will beat whoever they end up facing in the SB. Even if I could root for New England in general -- and I couldn't -- there is not way I want them infesting Indianapolis in a month. So: GO TEBOW (ew ew ew).

Yeah, I'm still expecting some bad games, but this season has been so much fun. Next year is going to be really exciting. The thing with having low expectations is that you start to expect the team to live down to them at some point. I'm not sure what is meant by "bad games", but honestly, I don't really expect it anymore. They've had plenty of bad moments of basketball this year and have still managed to win those games. I'm not big on the "winning breeds confidence" thing in most cases, but I'm pretty sure Crean is playing up on that to a bunch of kids that have never won enough to know any better. I just don't see the bad losses coming with this team. I started the season hoping they'd sneak into 6th place in the conference and maybe get a token tourney bid. It's to the point now that I can't look forward to next year. This team should win 25-games and win a tourney game with a shot at a Sweet 16. No? Jeez, by my lights, they just barely avoided bad losses in consecutive games (while Michigan is good, I'd consider a blown fifteen-point lead at home to a peer to be a bad loss). The defensive play has really slipped the last two games. IU seems like a team just waiting to lose a bad game. I just hope they can get through Minnesota without a bad loss, take the lump at Ohio State, then get Will Sheehey back. They're really missing him -- his return, if nothing else, should help alleviate Crean's poor substitution patterns the past couple games -- even if it hasn't shown up in the won/loss record. I do think they're headed for low/mid-20s in wins and a good NCAA Tournament seed. However, they seem like early-upset fodder -- I'm thinking high seed that loses in the second round (no tournament experience and, despite the amazing start, some rather exploitable weaknesses). That should still be considered a rousing success and garner Crean coach-of-the-year accolades.

in which we discover the dangers of naming your evaluation system after yourself. Ha ha. Does that mean I just said Pomeroy has a good tool . . .?

Before the season started, I thought, among Big Ten teams, Wisconsin and Michigan were overrated while Michigan State and Illinois were underrated. Having seen Michigan in person, I no longer think that (in my defense, I don't think anyone expected Trey Burke to be so good). Michigan will have plenty of opportunities for good wins and they'll end up with a few, little doubt. And if they can hang on to Tim Hardaway, Jr., they could be excellent next year (though I do think Mitch McGary is a bit overrated but I haven't seen him much since his improvement).

http://kenpom.com/blog/index.php/weblog/on_wisconsin_the_faq/ First, I knew he did, but it is refreshing that he acknowledges that his system is flawed vis-a-vis Wisconsin. Wisconsin was never going to be a top-five team this year; Bo Ryan's recruiting had slipped too much for that (I believe illiniguy has often, correctly, pointed out the fallacy that Wisconsin won despite not having talent). Second, I would agree that Wisconsin doesn't invalidate his overall work. However, what it does, is helps prove that Pomeroy is merely a tool. It's a good one, probably the best one. It's just not inerrant. I love empiricism as much as anyone, but when the empiricism shows something that is (seemingly?) absurd, we should still remain skeptical. Especially considering basketball is not baseball when it comes to empiricism. I'll step off my soap box now.

Cant wait to see their fans continue to embarrass themselves. Continue? You mean after the one thing that happened one time? Regardless, I have a suspicion that those racist jerks are as much Liverpool fans as the guy dressed in the Pedo Bear outfit was a Penn State fan (not to say LFC is without racist fans; people mostly suck and all fan bases have their racists).

Wish I could watch this game . . .

Jim Hendry always gets his man.

Well, I'm a little late here, but I'll assume you believe I wasn't crazy enough to pick freakin' Cincinnati on the road: Texans over Bengals Steelers over Broncos Saints over Lions Giants over Falcons Patriots over Steelers Ravens over Texans Saints over 49ers Packers over Giants Patriots (please no, not here) over Ravens Saints over Packers Saints over Patriots

Love this trade. Now, I'm neither a scout nor do I follow the minor leagues as closely as some on this board. So, if one wanted to say I was out of my depth and my opinion was next to worthless on this issue, one would not inherently be wrong. That said, without a personal scouting report on either player, I love the logic of this trade. The Cubs just traded a pitcher coming off an injury (with questions about his ability to become a full-fledged MLB starter?) for a similarly ranked, younger first baseman (which is a desperate, desperate, position of need). The Cubs management is also obviously very familiar, and very high, on the first baseman.

So basically not signing Fielder/Pujols (not sure that they should always be grouped together, as one is much better than other) moves us from a really good division favorite to crappy? This isn't basketball. One player won't make that much of a difference. First of all, I did not say that one player made the Cubs a "really good division favorite." I said "really competitive in the [division]." Those are different sentiments. I said division favorites in 2013 also required some other good moves; just not necessarily expensive moves. Second, do I really need to say that Pujols is a lot better than Fielder? Of course he is. They're grouped together because they were both available at a position of need and are both big upgrades -- yes, even though one is better than the other. The sky is also blue. Third, yes, one player at a desperate position of need could very easily be the difference between not-so-good and division contender in a crappy division. If this was the AL East, one player would not matter that much. But it's not. It's a division that wasn't that great to begin with and has now lost one of the greatest players of all time (Pujols) and, presumably, one of the better first basemen/power hitters in the game (Fielder). I don't love using WAR like this, but Pujols has averaged over seven wins per season and, excepting his first two years, Fielder has averaged 4.62 wins.* (I think those seven and 4.62 wins likely underestimate the value of adding a power hitter to the middle of a lineup that doesn't have one, though I'm sure most will disagree with that.) *Yes, this is rough and ignores expected production next year.

Because HR/FB rates are extremely volatile? In what must have been the last few minutes, fangraphs actually put up an article detailing the effectiveness of FIP, xFIP, SIERA, and the various projection systems at predicting future performance. Click here I'll be honest, after reading that I'm considering making the jump to SIERA as my go-to. Just for giggles, here's the aggregate 2010-2011 SIERA for some players relevant to the discussion (I only did two years because Travis Wood only has two years of data): Mat Latos: 3.33 Hiroki Kuroda: 3.60 Roy Oswalt: 3.64 Ubaldo Jimenez: 3.71 Ryan Dempster: 3.76 Matt Garza: 3.79 CJ Wilson: 3.80 Edwin Jackson: 3.92Gio Gonzalez: 3.98 Trevor Cahill: 4.08 Travis Wood: 4.22 Chris Volstad: 4.23 Rick Porcello: 4.25 Randy Wells: 4.31 Carlos Zambrano: 4.39 Paul Maholm: 4.40 Mark Buehrle: 4.56 Joe Saunders: 4.70 Interesting. I still think Jackson is really underrated on this board. Maybe, but Jackson is unarguably a volatile player, and his asking price (thus far) is pretty ridiculous. He's just not likely to be worth the risk, unless the price comes way down. He is intriguing, though. His asking price is absurd, no doubt. I just don't believe, at this point, he's going to come close to achieving that price. As for volatility, yes, but even his "down" years would be helpful. WARs the last four years: 2.1, 4.3, 1.7, 3.1 (the 1.7 is dragged down because he was awful in Arizona; perhaps park effects that the Cubs wouldn't have to worry about? Not sure.). He also pitched at least 183 innings each of those four years. That's nothing to scoff at.

Yes, it's rare for guys like Pujols, Fielder, Wilson and Darvish to all be available to the highest bidder in the same offseason. That was the point of striking while there was a chance, because those guys would fit into this team so well, and there is no guarantee you'll get a better option in 2-3 years. A lack of impact free agents becoming available is hardly an excuse to steer clear of impact free agents when they do become available. I just don't understand this obsession with having the most efficient roster. If Hoyer and his boys are any good at their job they will have plenty of young prospects to exploit on the cheap for several years, you don't have to suck on you way to getting there. This isn't necessarily in response to your post; I just quoted you because I wanted to incorporate most of your post. My complaint is not against anything the Cubs have done this year. It's against what they have not done (and what they're almost certainly not going to do). I don't think a spending spree was necessary to compete in 2013. Pujols or Fielder this year and one of the stud free agent pitchers next year. So, for 2013 you already have: C - Soto 1B - Pujols/Fielder 2B - Barney 3B - Stewart if he rebounds, otherwise ? SS - Castro LF - Soriano CF - Jackson? RF - DeJesus 1 - FA 2 - Garza 3 - Wood 4/5 - Volstad/Wells/Shark/Cashner/etc I think without any more tinkering that team is really competitive in the Central in 2013. With a few more clever moves like Wood -- which the current front office should be able to accomplish -- I think you could easily have the division favorites. One free agent signing per year for two years is not exactly a spending spree -- or swinging your junk around -- and I think you already have a good team. It's pretty frustrating because 2012 is going to stink without some miracle and I think the same thing can be said for 2013 (probably).

Because HR/FB rates are extremely volatile? In what must have been the last few minutes, fangraphs actually put up an article detailing the effectiveness of FIP, xFIP, SIERA, and the various projection systems at predicting future performance. Click here I'll be honest, after reading that I'm considering making the jump to SIERA as my go-to. Just for giggles, here's the aggregate 2010-2011 SIERA for some players relevant to the discussion (I only did two years because Travis Wood only has two years of data): Mat Latos: 3.33 Hiroki Kuroda: 3.60 Roy Oswalt: 3.64 Ubaldo Jimenez: 3.71 Ryan Dempster: 3.76 Matt Garza: 3.79 CJ Wilson: 3.80 Edwin Jackson: 3.92Gio Gonzalez: 3.98 Trevor Cahill: 4.08 Travis Wood: 4.22 Chris Volstad: 4.23 Rick Porcello: 4.25 Randy Wells: 4.31 Carlos Zambrano: 4.39 Paul Maholm: 4.40 Mark Buehrle: 4.56 Joe Saunders: 4.70 Interesting. I still think Jackson is really underrated on this board.

i dunno, i'm sure some people expect zambrano could pitch better and increase his trade value during the first 3-4 months, other people were probably just big fans of him, and then many expected a better return if the cubs were eating that much salary (see: logan morrison talk). but it definitely sucks to see kaplan gloating after a victory in his "get rid of the brown guys" crusade. Most definitely it sucks to see Kaplan gloat. The guy is terrible. Sometimes I forget, then I read an article like that. That's why I think there might be a tendency to see things through the anti-Kaplan lens when viewing Zambrano -- or, just in general, the anti-meatball lens when viewing anything. (Not to argue with anything in your first paragraph, I believe everything you mentioned was also at work; I just think there might be more at work as well.)

Man Kaplan is terrible. I do wonder, however, if some of the posts in this thread are a reaction in the opposite direction just because Kaplan is so deplorable the poster wanted him to be wrong about everything.

I have always liked Big Z and stood up for him amongst friends. So, shine on you crazy diamond. However, that doesn't mean I forgot that he was, in fact, a crazy. While I'm not enamored with Volstad, he's younger, pitched as well as Zambrano last year, and I feel confident that he won't go on a murderous teammate rampage next year. It's hard for me to be upset about cutting bait -- and potentially getting an average-ish starter back -- from a declining malcontent.

And before yesterday's game, Michigan State was No. 9 in Pomeroy. They won, on the road, against the No. 1 team. Today? Michigan State drops to No. 10. This may be overly-simplistic . . . but still.

Probably not, their non conference blowouts are really going to keep them propped up for most of the year unless they really tank. Seriously? Yeesh.

Crazy. With their second straight home loss -- though this one to the second-best team in the Big Ten -- any chance Wisconsin drops from their God-given perch atop Pomeroy (which even Pomeroy himself mocks)?

Huh, I even typically root for Purdue in bowl games (not vociferously, of course).

It's been a good week for Liverpool to make up some points -- exception being Chelsea's late escape against Wolves -- too bad LFC plays at City today . . .

Surely to goodness this will happen. It was a farce that he was ever hired in the first place.

Ah, didn't realize that. I, admittedly, did not look at or take schedules into consideration at all.

I would have picked IU ahead of Illinois if Sheehey had not just been injured (and my cynicism says he won't be very healthy for a number of weeks). Illinois has a lot more athleticism and should be able to withstand some bumps and bruises -- not to mention the physical grind of the conference -- better. I think SSR is right that IU could get worn down during conference play; though I think seventh is very, very unlikely for IU.