Exile on Waveland

Well, I was wrong about a couple things: First, it turned out there was one unaccounted-for family ticket and I was able to go. Pretty great. Second, knowing what I know now, I think Pomeroy's line was pretty accurate. Not necessarily because of IU, but because UK has some issues and I'm not sure they're nearly as good as I thought (they're obviously one of the best handful of teams in the country though). I think 3.5 was still way too low, but the six-point line probably not. I could see that game being UK by more than six points about half the time and less than six points half the time, roughly.

Ha. If Zeller gets in foul trouble, it'll get ugly in a hurry unless IU hits like 80% from three.

I'm trying not to get overly excited about IU and I've tried to keep my more optimistic thoughts to myself. That's all I'm willing to say on that subject; the last three years have beaten all us Hoosiers down. The last two games against UK give me hope for IU tomorrow (seriously, both were close games for a long time before IU succumbed). I just also worry that UK is such a step up in talent/athleticism from anything IU has seen so far that it could be a rude awakening. If it's a legitimate six-point game (and not a walk-on hitting three 3-pointers in the last thirty seconds), I'll be pleased and quite optimistic about the rest of the season. Regardless, I'm really excited. Too bad I won't be in the gym. All of my family's season tickets are accounted for, unfortunately, and I've been priced out of the re-sell market. This will be the first big IU home game I've missed since like the mid-90s and one of the very few home games, in general, I haven't attended during that time span. Edit: I thought both Iowa and Nebraska would be better than they apparently are. I considered them basically peers with IU, not so much anymore.

I'm not really sure who put a bug up your ass this year on statistical models, but a couple notes: Wisconsin was 11th ranked going into the game, and UNC was favored. I made mention that any ratings system that takes MOV into account is going to be slightly skewed by a big result early (for Wisconsin and Marquette, specifically this year). So I said though their rating was slightly inflated to produce the statistical projection Pomeroy came up with, Ken specifically noted that, and indicated the true odds were closer to 70% in UNC's favor, but the game could largely end up being a toss-up. It was a 4 point game with 30 seconds to play, a position that is favorable to the team in the lead but still largely volatile. If you're going to argue that Wisconsin had virtually no chance in the game down 4 with 30 to play, then fine. Now, if you're actually going to be willing to discuss possibilities and be open to considerations outside your own ass, then I'll be happy to continue discussion. If not, then you're just wasting my time with your condescension, which is admittedly disappointing because I had thought you were better than that. I love Pomeroy -- I sure as hell better, seeing as I now spend $20 a year for the service. I have no issues with statistical models. Pomeroy is a great, great tool. But it's not perfect. My issue was/is believing statistical models are as reliable in basketball as they are in baseball, especially early in the season. I struggle to understand how one could look at the home-court advantage and talent disparity and believe Wisconsin at UNC was a toss-up. Evidently, even Pomeroy didn't. I was ignorant to that fact, but 70% odds in UNC's favor seems very reasonable (even if I'd put the odds a bit higher). As for the four-point margin with thirty seconds left, it actually wasn't me, but Pomeroy that gave UNC an 80%-plus chance of victory (funny, I think that way too high, but whatever, he's more numerate than me). While Wisconsin did an admirable job in the final minute to close the gap, I'm rather dubious that last-minute heroics are very telling. Anecdotally, from another sport, the Colts trailed the Patriots by only a touchdown with thirty-six seconds remaining last week. Looks like a close game. But anyone that watched knew it wasn't really -- the Pats were ahead 31-3 with about 10 minutes left and 31-10 with just over two minutes left (obviously, the situations aren't identical as UNC never had such a commanding lead). One game is basically never dispositive, but it's kind of all we have to go on at this point, and UNC was in control over the last five minutes. Quickly, on the IU-UK margin. Perhaps my way of thinking is incorrect about this, you tell me. First, I think a four-point difference in a predicted margin is pretty substantial, especially for games that don't figure to be complete dominations. I understand it's only two baskets, but we're not talking about two baskets in a 30-point game. Second, in my mind, the predicted margin of victory should be the median -- i.e., the margin is just as likely to be smaller as larger. It's difficult for me to believe Kentucky winning by less than six (or losing) is equally as likely as Kentucky winning by more than six. I think IU has something of a chance, and don't think it will be a whitewash, but I have a hard time believing the median margin is only six.

I'm an IU fan. As rational as I try to be, you can probably tack on a couple points for my bias. A six-point margin obviously isn't as laughable as a 3.5-point margin, but it's still exceedingly optimistic for IU. Kentucky is loaded. IU has a total of three players that can athletically compete on the same court as UK (though, as I said, I do expect Hulls to play well). Obviously I hope I'm wrong and IU wins, but . . . it would be a very big upset. Anyway, keep on believing Wisconsin is the second best team in the nation. Because that's what I said. I said the UNC-Wisconsin game was a toss-up, and it was. The repeated condescension is really welcome, though. Thanks for the patronizing tone. You're right; you said Wisconsin was closer to the second best team than their current human ranking (which was No. 7 at the time, I believe). I suppose you thus said Wisconsin was a top-4 team, not necessarily the second-best team. I'll stand slightly corrected on that. As for UNC-Wisconsin, using Pomeroy, North Carolina had a 90% chance of winning with five minutes left, over a 95% chance of winning with a minute left, and never less than an 80% chance of winning in the last five minutes. Regardless of what Pomeroy said prior to the game, the game was not a toss-up at the end.

I'm an IU fan. As rational as I try to be, you can probably tack on a couple points for my bias. A six-point margin obviously isn't as laughable as a 3.5-point margin, but it's still exceedingly optimistic for IU. Kentucky is loaded. IU has a total of three players that can athletically compete on the same court as UK (though, as I said, I do expect Hulls to play well). Obviously I hope I'm wrong and IU wins, but . . . it would be a very big upset. Anyway, keep on believing Wisconsin is the second best team in the nation. Because that's what I said. I said the UNC-Wisconsin game was a toss-up, and it was. The repeated condescension is really welcome, though. Thanks for the patronizing tone. You're right; you said Wisconsin was closer to the second best team than their current human ranking (which was No. 7 at the time, I believe). I suppose you thus said Wisconsin was a top-4 team, not necessarily the second-best team. I'll stand slightly corrected on that. As for UNC-Wisconsin, using Pomeroy, North Carolina had a 90% chance of winning with five minutes left, over a 95% chance of winning with a minute left, and never less than an 80% chance of winning in the last five minutes. Regardless of what Pomeroy said prior to the game, the game was not a toss-up at the end.

Whatever. I'm already making plans to attend the "world's most cost-effective team" parade next year. The goal IS to put the best team you can out on the field each and every year. But, doing it at the expense of the future is stupid. Theo's not stupid. Nor have we missed out on ANYONE that can help both "in the now" and "in the future". If we miss out on Fielder, Darvish, and Cespedes, then I'll raise an eyebrow, but even then, we can still field a team capable of winning a very weakened division, such as ours is going to be. "At the expense of the future" is an obvious strawman argument. No one is asking to completely mortgage the future for next year. That doesn't mean you don't try to win next year, and, to this point, the Cubs are a worse team than their crappy 2011 team. Regardless, signing marquee free agents always -- always -- comes with such risk. To sign the best, you generally have to live with overpayment at the tail end of the deal. That's life as a big boy club. Second, claiming the Cubs haven't missed out on anyone that helps the present and future is patently false. Wilson and Pujols both would have helped present and future. Caveats obviously apply to both, but both players would have helped both next year and in future seasons.

I'm an IU fan. As rational as I try to be, you can probably tack on a couple points for my bias. A six-point margin obviously isn't as laughable as a 3.5-point margin, but it's still exceedingly optimistic for IU. Kentucky is loaded. IU has a total of three players that can athletically compete on the same court as UK (though, as I said, I do expect Hulls to play well). Obviously I hope I'm wrong and IU wins, but . . . it would be a very big upset. Anyway, keep on believing Wisconsin is the second best team in the nation.

Well that sounds outrageous. The line? It started at +3.5 and is at +4.5 now a couple hours later. That line is laughable; so is the Pomeroy. If you're a betting man, bet a lot on Kentucky to cover. However, while a Kentucky blowout is definitely on the table, I wouldn't assume a double-digit win is presaged. The home-court and UK's youth figure to be factors (and, for the record, IU played UK very close the last two years for well over half the game -- and IU is far, far improved this year). UK's athleticism will surely overwhelm IU at some point (I do suspect Hulls will have more success against an erratic Teague than you). I'm guessing, in the end, a 10-12 point win for Kentucky.

Whatever. I'm already making plans to attend the "world's most cost-effective team" parade next year.

That's a terrible analysis. The majority of that money is not going to be spent at all, it'll be invested. Pujols will pay $10M for a house that would have cost $2M in St Louis. The rest is just noise, at the salary levels we're talking about. If a $10 carwash now costs $13, that matters when you're making $25K. It doesn't matter when you're making $25M. And, of course, living in sunny Southern California is a little different than humid St. Louis. Higher cost of living generally goes hand-in-hand with better places to live. Even though my money would go farther in Oklahoma, I'd still rather live in New York City.* *Yeah, yeah, I live in crappy Indianapolis. But it's not always as easy as "NYC > Indy, I'll move there!"

I haven't noticed anything wrong with the sound.

They said that about the Rangers after they lost Cliff Lee. But now they don't have Cliff Lee, and their new best pitcher and the best player in baseball went to their rival. If Harren and Weaver have the same years they had last year, that's definitely a filthy rotation. Rangers still have a lot of room for improvement in house with young pitchers continuing their natural career arc and Feliz moving to the rotation. They're also the reported front runners for Darvish. The Angels finished 10 games behind the Rangers last year, so they'll need Pujols to be more of the 8+ WAR player he's been over his career than the 5.4 WAR he was last year. I'm not exaclty fond of using WAR this way . . . however, not only did the Angels add 10.4 WAR (Pujols 5.4; Wilson 5) from last year, the Rangers lost 5 WAR (Wilson). Not factoring in the WAR values of the players Pujols/Wilson are replacing -- because, frankly, I'm unsure how the Angels lineup will shake out -- the Angels just grossed over 15 WAR against the Rangers.

Good or bad doesn't matter all that much when the only thing you're being compared against is your own production. You have a valid point about whether a heavy player is in shape or not could affect the results, but that only undercuts the argument that Fielder isn't likely to age poorly... unless your contention is that all the heavy guys who are actually in shape are the ones who drag down the overall aging curve for the unabashed fatties like Fielder. And that one doesn't pass the sniff test. If anything it would make sense to expect Fielder to age worse than even the standard heavy player, given he over-qualifies for that designation by a good 40 pounds. I'm not saying anything is written in stone. But make no mistake about it... Fielder carries more risk than most are willing to admit. It needs to be a serious consideration before offering him that 6th or 7th year. I'm arguing that I just don't know. However, that article barely remedies my ignorance, other than (in my opinion) a rather facile comparison. I agree that Fielder carries risk -- including, or almost entirely, because of his weight. I'm willing to take that risk* because, among other reasons: (a) he's relatively young at 28; (b) the Cubs desperately need an infusion of talent -- especially power hitters and a first baseman; and © if not first base this year, I'm really, really uncertain where such infusion will come from (and, without it, I envision more crappy baseball). *Do not read as I'm unwilling to take a risk on Pujols. Also, understand that we all have a salary ceiling.

The author's conclusion was that he proved it was "clear that [Fielder's] best days are behind him" (emphasis supplied). Not that his analysis showed that, historically, players shaped similar to Fielder generally aged poorly; but that comparisions to other players proved, clearly, that Fielder's immediate decline was already written. Such hubris, such complete misunderstanding of what proof entails, should alone call into question the entirety of his analysis. Of course, the writer who wrote the bulk of the article was not the same as the one who did the research on how heavier players age. True, he did not do the research for the chart; he did the graphs and all the writing you quoted. Regardless, the link between the charted players and Fielder seems so thinly related to warrant little persuasive merit. I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say... because it sounds like you're saying Prince Fielder isn't heavy. Yes, he's heavy. But what does that matter, exactly? The chart merely separates players based on weight-height ratio. Some of those players would look like Arnold Schwarzenegger, some like Jabba the Hut. Some of those players would be really good, some would be really bad. I have no idea, Fielder may age horribly -- maybe even because of his weight -- but I'm not convinced that's presaged. I need more than 200ish players over the course of MLB history that may or may not even have similar body types or skill-sets.

The author's conclusion was that he proved it was "clear that [Fielder's] best days are behind him" (emphasis supplied). Not that his analysis showed that, historically, players shaped similar to Fielder generally aged poorly; but that comparisions to other players proved, clearly, that Fielder's immediate decline was already written. Such hubris, such complete misunderstanding of what proof entails, should alone call into question the entirety of his analysis. Of course, the writer who wrote the bulk of the article was not the same as the one who did the research on how heavier players age. True, he did not do the research for the chart; he did the graphs and all the writing you quoted. Regardless, the link between the charted players and Fielder seems so thinly related to warrant little persuasive merit.

The author's conclusion was that he proved it was "clear that [Fielder's] best days are behind him" (emphasis supplied). Not that his analysis showed that, historically, players shaped similar to Fielder generally aged poorly; but that comparisions to other players proved, clearly, that Fielder's immediate decline was already written. Such hubris, such complete misunderstanding of what proof entails, should alone call into question the entirety of his analysis.

Little bit of a different scenario in 2006. First, the margin between Michigan and Florida in the polls to begin with was much, much smaller than the margin between Alabama and Oklahoma State. It's possible that more voters switched this time the final week than did in 2006, but since the decision was much more split to begin with in 06 tipped the balance. Also, Michigan after they lost was never #2 in the polls. After the Michigan loss, it was USC 2, Michigan 3, Florida 4. So the voters never had to decide whether they were willing to put Michigan 2 until the final week when USC lost, and that's when they decided to leave Michigan at 3 and flip Florida at 2. In Oklahoma State's case, they lost after Alabama did. Finally, a small factor might have been that Michigan was done after their loss and Florida still had 2 more chances to impress the voters. Now, the SEC thing probably did have something to do with this rematch. I agree with that. But it's not a straight comparison to 2006 whatsoever. You're splitting hairs. Nothing is ever a straight comparision; but this is about as close as it will ever get. The SEC plays by different rules. When it was the Big Ten, team No. 2 already had their chance and the title game should not feature rematches. When it was the SEC, the best two teams should play in the title game, regardless of whether it's a rematch.* *For the record, I believe LSU and Alabama are the best two teams in the country. I have little problem with the rematch; I have a big problem with shifting goal posts.

28/29 isn't that old for a pitcher if you're thinking about whether he'll decline. However, if you're looking at his chances of hitting his upside and you're likely going to be paying him as if he's already hit his upside (a Dempster-esque contract or bigger wouldn't surprise me), it's getting a little old for him to have not shown any more than he has. As for Wilson, not only is he a much better pitcher than Jackson - struck out roughly 1.5 batters per 9 in his career, has posted two seasons of greater WAR than anything Jackson ever has - but he also has less mileage on his arm than Jackson. Jackson has thrown just over 1,000 MLB innings and has never been consistently good, Wilson has tossed around 700 MLB innings and has been great in his only two years starting. If we're going to overpay in money/contract this offseason, we need to overpay to stars, not guys who might be stars but have never shown that ability. I just don't understand the comparison. With Stewart, there's upside with basically no risk (if there is any, you don't pursue him). With Jackson, there might be upside and there's a ton of risk. First, again, I stated Wilson has been a superior pitcher. There was no reason to prove something I already conceded. I would mention, however, that Wilson was not consistently good until his 28 season and did not have consecutive good years as a starting pitcher until 30 -- so he must have improved at around the age Jackson is now. I'm also rather unconvinced by 300 less innings -- I could as easily argue, as I have, that just means he has not proven he can consistently carry a starter's workload. Second, I distinguished Stewart because he'll be cheap. It's not a perfect comparison, I acknowledged. The reason I brought him up, though, is that people are willing to look past his struggles because he's talented (and he'll come cheap, I'll say it again). In a similar vein, I'm willing to look past some of Jackson's performance (though again, WARs of 2.1, 4.3, 1.7, and 3.1, is not too shabby), until he becomes way too expensive. If we look at nothing but Stewart's numbers, he's worthless, even at a low price. If we look at nothing but Jackson's numbers, he'll likely be overpaid. A lot of posters think there might be more to Stewart; I think there might be more to Jackson.

I think you need to explain "affordability" better than you have there. Because I want, and I think you do too, players that are far less "affordable" than Jackson. I'm assuming you mean better value. Well, that's why I said two out of three. I want Albert Pujols. He won't be affordable, but he offers tremendous upside(maybe upside isn't the perfect the word, but I was trying to make a simplistic example) and consistency. The paradigm doesn't really fit the internationals, but for most other acquisitions it's an okay lens to view potential targets. Fair enough. I think there is a better-than-good chance Jackson does not end up being "affordable." That said, a team as rotation-starved as the Cubs, should be interested in him until he becomes really unaffordable.

Jackson was only 27 years old this past season; so he's entering his age-28 season (he will only turn 29 in September). Regardless, 29 is not that old for a pitcher. (Which you surely agree considering you're the biggest advocate of signing a pitcher entering his age-31 season; whether that pitcher is better or not.) As for your second paragraph, I think I covered the fact that Jackson may/will not be a good value for the contract he might receive, unlike Stewart.

I think you need to explain "affordability" better than you have there. Because I want, and I think you do too, players that are far less "affordable" than Jackson. I'm assuming you mean better value.

The problem is, Garza was 27 and pitching in the AL East at the time of the trade and Jackson will turn 29 next year and has been underwhelming all over the place (AL East, AL Central, NL Central). Garza also had somewhat better K/9, BB/9, and WHIP numbers. I wasn't the biggest fan of giving up as much as we did for a gamble like Garza, I certainly wouldn't be in favor of giving up a bunch of money on an older, worse gamble like Jackson. Jackson would be a bigger gamble than Garza, certainly. I have a lot less faith that he fully figures things out. However, the last four years he's had WARs of 2.1, 4.3, 1.7, and 3.1. He has the talent to at least sustain that, and possibly improve it. People are interested in Ian Stewart for third-base despite him being one of the worst hitters in the majors last year and never worth more than 1.3 wins. The reason is because he's talented, may/will come cheap, and the Cubs have nothing at third base. Jackson is talented and I consider the rotation a bigger need than third base. Jackson, however, won't come cheap and I wouldn't bid too awful high. But I'd feel a lot better about the rotation if he was included.

What's the appeal in Jackson? He has a career 6.68 K/9 and 3.66 BB/9. His xFIPs have shown improvement the past couple of years (3.71 and 3.73) and he's been a 3.6-3.8 WAR pitcher the past couple of years, but he'll need to start striking guys out and walking fewer for me to see much more upside. I think he'll get well overpaid for what his production is likely to be. I'm not at all interested in him. Talent. The same reason people were in favor of the Garza deal last year. I wouldn't break the bank, but he still has a lot of potential.

Because they don't have the talent sufficient to sustain that kind of performance. Not even remotely. As far as "play[ing] as well as any other in the country," they've pummeled scrubs (with maybe BYU excepted) at home or on neutral courts. Their Pomeroy strength-of-schedule is currently No. 323 nationally. (For a comparison, Duke is 7-0 with the twenty-second toughest schedule, including wins over Kansas, Michigan State, Michigan, Tennessee, and Belmont). Wisconsin has accomplished nothing impressive yet.