JLN

Oh boy, wait until someone tells you about Nico Harrison

I would love access to the social forum too.

I didn't say anything about Doncic's defense. Bagley may have the physical tools to be OK defensively, but you're projecting a lot before he hits adequate. Also, if you're still hung up on NBA positions you're knocking one guy for being a tweener while propping up another tweener. Again, you don't know what you're talking about... Bagley doesn't just have the physical tools to be OK defensively -- he has the tools to be an above-average defender if he actually turns those tools into refined skills. Same as when you're discussing tools while talking about MLB prospects. Tools do not equal skills. Bagley isn't really a tweener either. His listed height is 6'11" and he currently weighs 234 lbs. He's not listed as a pure PF because he plays more like a C who plays near the hoop. Most PFs have to be able to shoot all the way out to the 3-pt line, and he is capable of that. His 3-pt percentage in college is 35.4% and his shooting mechanics are fine. I think he's perfectly capable of playing PF in the NBA. It will take him awhile to learn how to guard better and bigger players in the NBA, but that's true of most young players entering the league. Read this article (ESPN Insider) and you'll be better informed: http://www.espn.com/nba/insider/story/_/id/21704960/will-marvin-bagley-college-superstardom-translate-nba-2018-draft Yeah, I have hope that he turns some of those tools into actual defense at some point too, but his lack of length makes it hard for him to make up for his general lack of defensive awareness. I honestly have no idea if he can learn defensive instincts but he has none now. And you don't need to convince me Bagley will be good. I think there is more perimeter game in his skillset than he has shown but he hasn't needed to show it much because how much he can dominate smaller guys inside at the college level. Seriously my only point was that if you like guys who can contribute on both ends of the floor Bagley is a funny guy to support at #1. I wouldn't have said anything if you had the same criticism of Doncic but wanted Jaren Jackson at #1 (even though I would prefer Bagley to Jackson right now).

It's funny to not trust Doncic's defense but then want Bagley. Also, Doncic is either going to be a PG or a SF in the NBA. He's not a good enough shooter to play SG, and not big enough to play PF/C. You think he can keep up with all the elite PGs in the NBA right now? R. Westbrook, D. Lillard, K. Irving, J. Wall, K. Lowry, and on and on it goes. You think Doncic can guard J. Butler, Lebron, Durant, K. Leonard, etc. at SF? Are you serious??? Every scout has questions about his defense at the next level. I didn't say anything about Doncic's defense. Bagley may have the physical tools to be OK defensively, but you're projecting a lot before he hits adequate. Also, if you're still hung up on NBA positions you're knocking one guy for being a tweener while propping up another tweener.

It's funny to not trust Doncic's defense but then want Bagley.

I was there. Bryant hit it really far.

I'm not a psychiatrist so I could be wrong on some of this, but I think some of the confusion regarding psychostimulants is that people hear the "stimulant" part of the word and assume there is some paradoxical effect because a "stimulant" should stimulate behavior. Actually what they do is stimulate dopamine (and I believe norepinephrine) activity by blocking reuptake of the neurotransmitter in the prefrontal cortex where executive functioning takes place. Increased dopamine activity improves executive functioning and ADHD is basically a disorder of executive functioning. People without ADHD likely already have adequate dopamine activity, but the effects of taking the stimulant should really be the same (although there may be some additional euphoria or something related to the flooding of dopamine).

Sure, the point still stands and I agree with him. I was admittedly nerding out, but his Skinner thing was right but the Pavlov thing was not.

I don't think you have that right.

I hope they are not done upgrading the line. In particular, I'd like to see them still look at tackles. I don't feel like we know enough about Williams yet and I don't trust Pace to stay healthy. If Angelo is going to ignore one side of the ball in the draft I hope he ignores the offense, but of course I don't think he'll ignore the draft. I would still expect better players in rounds 1-3 than rounds 4-7 though. I disagree. We have Pace, Williams, Schafer, and Omiyale. More than fine. not only do we have them, but we have beekman, garza, buenning, draft pick on the bench. while those names aren't anything special as starters, they're experienced lineman that give us excellent depth. the line is an area of strength this year, so we can stop pretending like it's still a weakness and actually now focus on the weaknesses. jeez, we patch a hole that has existed since the 1950's andpeople are still complaining. if we upgraded the defense, people would be whining about the quarterback and offensive line. come to think of it, we've upgraded the offensive line, greatly, and people are still complaining about it. You're probably right, but the problem is that there are a lot of areas in need of an upgrade and in upgrading quarterback it has become a lot more difficult to upgrade those other areas of need. I do appreciate that Angelo has actually done something big this offseason and I hope it works out even if I have my doubts.

I hope they are not done upgrading the line. In particular, I'd like to see them still look at tackles. I don't feel like we know enough about Williams yet and I don't trust Pace to stay healthy. If Angelo is going to ignore one side of the ball in the draft I hope he ignores the offense, but of course I don't think he'll ignore the draft. I would still expect better players in rounds 1-3 than rounds 4-7 though.

I realize I am really late in reading this, but after being called a Packer fan I have never been so offended. Well with that ridiculous comment I could only assume you were a Packer fan. If thats not the case, then it must just be that you dont know much about the Bears or football. Really? Is it that ridiculous to be concerned that the upgrade at quarterback might not help enough to offset the poor group of receivers, questionable offensive line, and average and aging defense? It is also reasonable to doubt that Cutler will be a perennial All Pro with the Bears. I hope it happens, but I don't think it's the slam dunk like most seem to think. Theyve addressed the offensive line already for one. Recievers we will see, but they have weapons in Hester, Olsen, and Clark with Bennet being an unknown at this point, but hes got history with Cutler. Your comment was "every defensive postion" and that is just plain ridiculous and you know it. Its hyperbole at its finest. Oh and they still have 8 picks to use and Angelo has a history with drafting starters later in the draft on defense. So yes your comment was ridiculous Im sorry. Sure, that comment was hyperbole, but the defense was not very good last year. I think Babich was awful as a defensive coordinator and I hope there will be improvements there. I also hold out hope that Marinelli is a great defensive line coach and help what I think should be the strength of the defense actually produce this year. This still looks like a defense that is getting worse recently rather than better. I know Angelo tends to have more success finding starters later in the draft, and he has a ton of pressure to find those guys late if he wants a complete enough team to win a Super Bowl with Cutler.

Well with that ridiculous comment I could only assume you were a Packer fan. If thats not the case, then it must just be that you dont know much about the Bears or football. Really? Is it that ridiculous to be concerned that the upgrade at quarterback might not help enough to offset the poor group of receivers, questionable offensive line, and average and aging defense? It is also reasonable to doubt that Cutler will be a perennial All Pro with the Bears. I hope it happens, but I don't think it's the slam dunk like most seem to think. For all the crap some Bears fans give Lovie, I think he did an excellent job last year (all things considered). To finish 9-7 with an unknown at RB, an average QB at best, and absolutely no WR's was pretty impressive. Now they add a QB that is legitimately good. Sure the Bears gave up two first round picks, but to land a player like Cutler, you really can't complain about that. I think it's a trade that should benefit both teams in the long run. I'd agree with that and I would expect the offense to get better next year. I have a lot of concerns about what the offensive line and the defense as a whole will look like over the next several years. I could see Cutler needing to put up a ton of points while constantly on his back because of a poor offensive line and defense

HAHA bitter Packer fan face, I LOVE IT! I realize I am really late in reading this, but after being called a Packer fan I have never been so offended. Well with that ridiculous comment I could only assume you were a Packer fan. If thats not the case, then it must just be that you dont know much about the Bears or football. Really? Is it that ridiculous to be concerned that the upgrade at quarterback might not help enough to offset the poor group of receivers, questionable offensive line, and average and aging defense? It is also reasonable to doubt that Cutler will be a perennial All Pro with the Bears. I hope it happens, but I don't think it's the slam dunk like most seem to think.

HAHA bitter Packer fan face, I LOVE IT! I realize I am really late in reading this, but after being called a Packer fan I have never been so offended.

I hope Jay Cutler is also a great receiver, offensive lineman, and every position on defense.

I believe Wood ended up being in higher leverage situations overall but that's because Lou put Marmol into a bunch of 5-7 run games where he didn't need to be in. If he avoids more of those innings this year, his leverage average would go way up. That's true, but I'm not convinced Lou will do that.

I read a bunch of people say that because Marmol is the best reliever on the roster he would best used to put out fires. I get that. But, unless I am misinterpreting the LI numbers, even last year when Marmol was in that role Wood was used in higher leverage situations. I am not sure I have a problem with Piniella's choice of Gregg as the closer as much as I have a problem with feeling the need to choose a closer in the first place.

Are you trying to tell us something that we don't already know here? Look, this is really simple: there is way too much emotion going on in all of your posts. No one is happy that Hill's control has disappeared, and no one knows why it happened. Even if there were a meaningful discussion to be had here (and there isn't), it wouldn't happen because of the nature and tone of your posts. People here don't respond well to these petulant, emotionally charged posts under any circumstances, really. And frankly, the only posts that make the thread readable are the sarcastic ones. You are right when you talk about the vets on this board and the difficulty of getting a post/thread accepted by them. The majority of their posts are probably shots at uninformed and tactless posters cluttering the board, but you'll notice that when any of them start a thread,* they normally make a substantive claim that induces discussion. The "noobs" and the emotionally-driven tend to treat starting a new thread like another post, and forget the substance and hurt any chance of a real discussion. Once you begin starting threads with stats-based claims and relevant information, things will get better for you. *with the exception of maybe IMB. But 90% of them are funny. Are you lecturing Rotoworld?

I want to start this post by apologizing for the length of it but I wanted to put something together to get my mind off potential Zambrano and Harden injuries. I love reading this board and I have learned a lot from it but recently I’ve felt the need to comment on some of the sabermetric talk because it has gone overboard in terms of absolutes (e.g., “bunting is bad” and “clutch hitting doesn’t exist”). My claims for this are basically based on Bill James’ article, “Underestimating the Fog” and the game theory chapter from The Book. While I obviously am not nearly as smart as James or Tango, Lichtman, and Dolphin I want to bring out a couple of the main points. In James’ article he basically is arguing that the methods used to reach some of the common conclusions in sabermetric research (including things like pitcher wins, cERA, streakiness, and lineup protection) are flawed so our conclusions may be flawed as well. James’ argument is that the randomness of data (the fog) might be much more dense than we give it credit for so the inability to find results may not mean the effects aren’t actually there but instead that researchers have yet to find appropriate methods to find those effects. The game theory chapter is probably more relevant to the issues I’m talking about. I’m not going into the details about game theory but I’m going to use the example of the sacrifice bunt (because it sparked my interest from the 9/2 game thread). They basically argue that although run expectancy and win expectancy might sometimes dictate that a sacrifice bunt would be a poor choice it is a good idea to sometimes bunt anyway. By bunting occasionally, even sometimes when the defense is playing in, you can force the opposing manager to play for the bunt and gain the benefit of the increased likelihood of getting a hit at some later point. (This also means is that in cases where bunting or not bunting results in a similar run or win expectancy managers are actually bunting right around the proper amount.) Anyway, I can’t explain it any better than the authors but I think that example explains it pretty well. So I would argue that we can’t make definite statements based on some of the sabermetric research because our level of confidence based on the research should not be that high. Also, based on game theory, as long as the opponent isn’t so horribly managed that they do the same exact thing every time in every situation, questionable managerial decisions (like bunting) could sometimes be beneficial even when win expectancy disagrees. I’m not very smart so I hope anyone that is familiar with this stuff will correct all of my errors.

Nice Dusty Baker hindsight argument. Well played. There was also the foresight, the statistics, and the fact that it's bloody stupid to bunt with Dero when you've got what'shisface batting next That's okay. You tried to criticize and you were wrong. Buck up and keep shooting for that rainbow. A) you confirmed that you don't know what statistically significant means, B) you missed the point: you sound exactly like that stubborn little kid who won't acknowledge not just why he's wrong, but that he's wrong. A.) Ummm, sorry. Feel free to keep pushing that, though. B.) Irony. Please define "statistically significant" without googling or wiki-ing, plz. You mean "not due to chance?" Feel free to explain how the win PROBABILITY difference of 1% (when based upon previous data) is statistically significant. I was not great in my statistic classes but I'm pretty sure it depends on where you set your alpha-level. My guess is that with any reasonable alpha-level that difference is statistically significant due the likely large sample size of data. It sounds like this is a statistical significance vs. clinical significance argument that has gotten out of control and missed the main point of discussion in the first place.

Those are very nice numbers. You want a guy in scoring position. You can say what you want, but statistics show that bunting decreases your chances of winning Not that I would have bunted in this situation but sometimes I wish fangraphs didn't exist because people tend to forget the idea of context.

I could be remembering incorrectly, but I thought Marquis pinch ran for him.

I'm actually making my first trip to Houston for Friday and Saturday's games. Do you have any suggestions? Edit: I realized maybe this shouldn't be in a game thread. Sorry if it was inappropriate. Where are your seats? Who are you going with? What kind of suggestions do you need? My wife and I will be leaving Hattiesburg tomorrow and we'll be in section 410 tomorrow and 319 Saturday. I don't know for sure what suggestions I have in mind. What's it like getting to Minute Maid? What's parking like? What is the area around Minute Maid like? Are there any things we must do in Houston during the day Saturday? Are there any great restaurants for a graduate student's budget? I guess that's the kind of stuff I was thinking of.

I'm actually making my first trip to Houston for Friday and Saturday's games. Do you have any suggestions? Edit: I realized maybe this shouldn't be in a game thread. Sorry if it was inappropriate.