Exile on Waveland

Not that IU is going to beat Kentucky, but I wouldn't write it off as a blowout just yet. IU played UK close into the second half the last two years before faltering, and this IU team is much better (Kentucky may be better, who knows, they're always loaded with talent so it's hard to say). Pomeroy has UK with a 75% chance of winning, but the margin of victory at only eight. But, you're without the legend of Mo Creek! True. IU is going to miss Creek's 31.0 points-per-game average against Kentucky. Did you hear that he scored 31 points against Kentucky as a freshman?

Not that IU is going to beat Kentucky, but I wouldn't write it off as a blowout just yet. IU played UK close into the second half the last two years before faltering, and this IU team is much better (Kentucky may be better, who knows, they're always loaded with talent so it's hard to say). Pomeroy has UK with a 75% chance of winning, but the margin of victory at only eight.

This. I'm gonna say the guy with a ROY award and multiple All Star appearances is better known. OK, perhaps I should have said "more well known to NL Central fans." As for two all-star appearances, I don't think most people realize that -- lots of players make the all star game now. And, frankly, I already forgot he won the Rookie of the Year because, well, I don't really care. The Oakland A's live in near complete anonymity anyway.

Me too. The thread title is very unclear and misleading. One of the teams involved has a far more well-known player with the surname "Bailey" and, therefore, everyone is likely to immediately think of Homer. It would be similar to starting a thread titled "Cubs and Dodgers discussing Castro" (oh, it's actually some dude named Juan Castro, not Starlin).

Great result for Liverpool. They can win at Chelsea and at Arsenal . . . but can't beat newly promoted teams at Anfield (Swansea, Norwich). Hmm . . . four road wins already is a great start, just need to start taking care of business at home.

Hmm . . . I had not gone back through Rivals to double check. Just going off memory/opinion, I figured the talent level at top was Ohio State-Michigan State-Illinois. (But, after the past few years, I could see why some are not into the whole Illinois-talent thing.)

Wilson's a rarity in many ways. I can understand being wary about Wilson, but there are really only two negatives to him - age and the jump in workload. The positives are two excellent seasons starting, improved peripherals from year one starting to year two, and very little wear on his arm. Given the very strong positives in his favor and having seen his workload increase under Maddux, I'm willing to take a 5/90 with a vesting option for a 6th risk on him. Any more than that and I lose my interest. I'm glad you used the correct word; in my sickly, insomniac state I didn't realize I used "weary" incorrectly. I shall now correct that embarrassment.

Ha, well, we didn't even have the same top-3 after Ohio State. I just assumed Michigan State was included in that; they have the second most talent in the league. If they figure out the point guard spot -- which is very important in Izzo's system -- they figure to be quite good. As for your preferred three: -Purdue? Hummel is great (when healthy). Their backcourt is good and deep. The rest of the frontcourt . . . uh, well, did I mention Hummel is really good? -Michigan? They strike me as the prototypical overrated-because-of-a-good-tournament-game team. They lost fourteen games last year and went .500 in the league. They also lost their best player (Darius Morris). Yet, they're ranked highly because they gave Duke a great run the tournament -- but did Duke not get throat-stomped the next game? I like Beilein and think Tim Hardaway, Jr. is a breakout candidate. But I'm not sure they're clearly better than everyone below. -Wisconsin? Probably, bar Ohio State, the most likely to finish near the top of the conference. However, I think there are far more questions here than normal. They've usually had their fair share of 4-, or even 5-, star players; this year they have only one (Jared Berggren -- so, ostensibly, two with Jordan Taylor). I know I'm more lukewarm here than most, though. Those three teams may end up finishing 2-3-4, but I don't think there is that much separating them. For one, Illinois has more talent than all three of them (as mentioned, so does Michigan State).

That's very true. And while this board has come to believe that means he is less likely get hurt . . . I'm wary of such proclamations. Maybe I'm wrong, but I'm unaware of any analysis that shows a pitcher that never pitched major innings, then pitched 200+ innings consecutive seasons, is less of an injury risk than someone who has consistently proven they can handle that workload. (For an example, at least prior to his last deal, I would have had few qualms about CC Sabathia, despite his previous workload.) I'm not sure this "only so many bullets in the arm" logic holds much water. Pitchers get hurt -- sometimes they've pitched a lot; sometimes they've pitched little. Wilson's less-than-typical wear and tear also means he doesn't have the track record of success I'd prefer to see in a big-money deal. He's had two good years as a starter -- granted, the only two years he's been a starter -- and he will a sign a major-money deal to start for about three times the years he's been a starter. He also, in my opinion, doesn't elite talent/stuff. We all know Pujols is a stud. We all know Fielder is a stud. That's why you sign them; even overpay them. Can we really, honestly, say the same thing about Wilson, or does he just happen to be the best starter on the market this particular offseason?

Outside of Ohio State it's a [expletive] crapshoot man. . . . and Penn State. Yep I think 5 or 6-11 are all fairly interchangeable at this point. I think more than that are interchangeable.

I put little stock in the postseason numbers, and even less in the wins, but I'm still wary of Wilson. He strikes me as someone just waiting to fail to live up to his big contract (though I do wonder if he'd be more likely to continue his pace in Texas). I'm sure this is the point where someone points out his production the previous two years. Obviously, he's been excellent. The question is, do two outstanding seasons at 29/30 years of age presage four/five more at 31-34/35? I'm dubious.

Outside of Ohio State it's a [expletive] crapshoot man. . . . and Penn State.

you really missed the point if you thought they were being compared strictly as pitchers the point was that Wells' effectiveness combined with his cost-efficiency made him arguably nearly as valuable a commodity as Garza; of course he suffered some arm injuries last season and Garza had a breakout season so things have indubitably changed Of course they were being compared as pitchers. They are pitchers, after all, what else would they be compared as? Here are some quotes from the first four pages of the Garza trade threat: "[Garza] and Gorzelanny have a lot of similarities, but we're aggressively shopping one and trying to acquire the other?" (OK, not Wells, but still) "Why on earth would we trade Wells for Garza?" "[Garza to Wells is] really not that much of an upgrade, and when you factor in the salary difference between the two, it makes little sense for the Cubs to make that trade." "Again, his ERA+ and WAR was worse than Wells last season. Since ERA+ is calculated using league ERA and adjusts for ballparks, I fail to see how he's much of an upgrade. " "I really don't see the positive behind dealing Wells for Garza." "And what reason do we have to believe that Garza will be much better than Wells from here on out? He hasn't been to this point." Obviously, any comparison between players will factor in cost. Cost was often a factor when making the Wells-Garza comparison; however, the Wells-is-as-good-as-Garza point was made nearly/just as often. The thread became a discussion if Wells-for-Garza was a fair trade and posters said no, often independent of salary/acquisation concerns. People specifically said Garza was not an upgrade over Wells. Sorry, but that's comparing them as pitchers. Regardless, your second paragraph is pretty much the point, actually. Garza was always a candidate for a break-out season. Wells was always a candidate for a break-down season (either in performance or durability -- he had never pitched more than 131.1 innings prior to his first season starting with the Cubs). That thread was not a shining moment in this board's history.

I'm not sure how much we can gather out of these games for IU. They're obviously much more athletic then the teams they're playing and are just overwhelming them. It is fun to be back in a position though where these games are not a struggle anymore. It will be interesting to see what happens when they come up against some teams that will test them. Watching them I can't help but think about next year either. Taking only 1 player out of the top 7-8 and replacing it with 5 freshman of which 3 of them will probably contribute immediately? This team could be good, but that team is very likely to be good to great. Plus that team will have to be one of the top 2-3 athletic teams in the Big 10. It's pretty difficult not to be getting excited about IU after the last three years. I thought Evansville might be a difficult game; it was not at all. IU is clearly more athletic and talented than they have been. However, as you said, it's going to be hard to tell anything until IU plays better competition. They've played three nobodies. They were better last year than the year before and it resulted in all of two more wins (and one less Big Ten win). They still have some obvious problem areas. Before the season I would have agreed with SSR's under-18 wins prediction. At this point, I no longer do (though not much over 18). Next year, the team should actually be good. And not in the way this year's team might be good enough to garner some bubble attention if things go right. Actually good.

It was a lot of fun and a great story when Wells was pitching well, but it seemed apparent to me there was a lot of smoke and mirrors to his success. I never expected that success to continue. He's pitched (basically) three years in the majors and gotten worse each year. Not only was he average/poor last year, but he only managed to be average/poor for 135 innings -- if you're going to be a replacement-level back-of-the-rotation starter, you at least need to reliably eat innings. I'm sure people will point to his first two years but baseball -- nay, sports in general -- is littered with people who overachieved for a year or two and regressed to their true talent level. It was laughable last year when people favorably compared Wells to Garza; I don't think expecting Wells to miraculously be the 3-win pitcher he was his first two years is much better. Wells should, obviously, be allowed to compete for a rotation spot. I would be disappointed if he's guaranteed a spot, though.

More than I'd give him. Chen is a serviceable starter, but not something we need. We need a front end starter. We have enough back end options if need be. How did all those back-end options work out this past year? (Not that I want Chen.)

I'm not bitter. At all. I didn't/don't care about either team. All I expect is fair treatment between conferences (i.e., the SEC this year). You'll have to excuse me if I find that prospect to be rather dubious.

Alabama lost at home to LSU, they don't deserve a rematch. I don't care when the game happened. But since it's the SEC I'm sure the media will trumpet it until it happens. Thus I'm pulling for OSU to run their schedule. No one in the media is trumpeting for a rematch at the moment. You are inventing slights that haven't happened. First, I have heard some trumpeting for an LSU-Alabama rematch (if/when Oklahoma State loses). Regardless, you are still missing the point in your Big Ten-hating haze. The point is, there has been no vehement push-back against an LSU-Alabama rematch as there was against an Ohio State-Michigan rematch in 2006-07. In 2006-07, the media (and poll voters) coalesced around the idea that a rematch was unpalatable -- which, I think, has some logic -- and contrived to push Florida ahead of Michigan in the polls. To this point, no such contrivance exists against an LSU-Alabama rematch. Maybe it will eventually; but, until it does, one must wonder why.

Yeah, I was shocked and disappointed this morning when I tried to click-through his site. I don't always read his blog and missed his earlier warning he was going to a pay-site. I use his site so much I think I'll have to end up paying the $20. Oh well; it's good content, hard to complain that it's not free.

Derwood: I believe, in retrospect, you are going to eventually be highly embarrassed about your posts in this thread. Everyone that had any involvement/knowledge in the cover-up (or whatever term you want to use) of child molestation should be immediately removed from their position. I'm not sure how that's even debatable. Other than "rah, rah, go team!"

And suddenly, there's no doubt who I want to be the next manager. Seconded.

Kenpom is brilliant.

Care to find out? http://aeryssports.com/a-league-of-her-own/files/2011/02/dusty.jpg Make it stop. Halloween is over.

I think it's interesting that Oswalt's name shows up in this conversation. If Ramirez had played his career in, say, Detroit and Seattle, folks here would be about as interested in signing him as they are in signing Oswalt. The two are about as similar as a hitter and a pitcher can be... the age, the WAR figures, the injury concern, the pricetag etc. I understand your point . . . but I would trade Ramirez for pitcher-Ramirez. Just as I would trade Soriano for pitcher-Soriano (Zito?). I also suspect Ramirez will receive a larger deal than Oswalt.

That was in Ramirez's best season in the last three, by far. A reasonable projection has him dropping a bit. So for Ramirez, we're looking at a projection of 2.5 WAR to 3.5 WAR, depending how optimistically you want to project him. (I'm not saying he couldn't have a better season than that, or a worse season, I'm just saying that projecting for 2012, that's pretty much the range you have to come in at). Alternative cheap solutions project from a pessimistic 0 WAR (that's pretty much what replacement level means) to the optimistic 1.5 WAR (if the platoon works reasonably well or you get a good vet). That's pretty much the range we're arguing about here. I see it closer to 1-2 wins (I'm pretty bearish on Ramirez and bullish on internal options), but I could see the argument that it is closer to 3 wins if you were bullish on Ramirez and bearish on the replacements. I don't see how a 3-win downgrade would mean that we are so doomed that we have to put away any thoughts of competing if we whiffed on the elite 1bmen. I think it's far more likely to be a three-win downgrade. I would expect the platoon to be a disaster. Frankly, it wouldn't surprise me to see the minor leaguer struggle so much that whatever manager ends up giving Baker most all the at-bats, which would be awful against righties. I don't see how a three-win downgrade isn't likely to spell doom. The Cubs won 71 games last year. Their expected wins was actually worse, at 69. Using your WAR predictions, even if the Cubs sign Pujols/Fielder, that's only (what?) a three or four-win upgrade over Pena (I think that number is too low, but whatever). Using WAR, I don't see how you can start with 71, subtract three, and realistically end with anything but a bad team.