CubColtPacer

I don't really think the "overabundance" is a problem that needs fixing, is it? Hill is probably gone. Samardzija is in AAA, with Hart and Ascanio (I assume they have options). The spare parts are probably Vizcaino and Guzman (he's out of options now, isn't he?). If Olson has options he can be sent down if they want to keep one of those guys. Ascanio, Hart, Olson, Guzman, and Samardzija all have at least one option left (as do Marshall and Marmol, but they aren't going anywhere).

It doesn't quite work like that because that effectively penalizes Z for being really good at the plate and pitching well at the same time (because the Cubs would blow out the other team, therefore making Z's hitting less important). Not to mention, in a close game, would you count RBI's in the 2nd or 3rd inning of a 1 run game? That doesn't mean they aren't important, but it's hard to pinpoint that as the reason for the win. Here's a few examples though: Cubs win 7-6 over Padres, Z goes 3 for 3 with 1 RBI Cubs win 6-3 over Marlins, Z has a key double in the 5th inning that led to 4 runs. Cubs win 3-2 over Reds, Z's homer in the 3rd gives the Cubs the cushion they need.

1.625 according to the link in the first post. I can't see it being Hill from the way that link read (with the Hill tidbit right after). Probably a guy like Ascanio if they want major league ready or a lower minors guy or two. I don't see the Mariners wanting to take Vizcaino's salary on.

On that note, keep track of how many times the Cubs make an out on the basepaths. That's also a very good idea. Obviously CS is already a stat, but there's no stat for getting thrown out at a base for being way too aggressive (either trying to take extra bases or trying to take 3rd on a ball hit to the left side). http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=421535 Care to translate? Each stat in the middle corresponds to a different part of baserunning. One deals with stolen base attempts, another one deals with advancing on groundouts, another one deals with advancing on flyouts, another one on advancing on base hits, and finally advancing on things like wild pitches. The value of the extra base is compared to how many outs are recorded and then it's calculated how many runs were created or lost in each category compared to an average runner. Each is factored into the stat on the very right, which is how efficient the player was on the bases overall. Is there a category for outs made on the basepaths? It's not its own separate category, no. But tracking outs by itself is just as worthless as simply seeing how many extra bases a player takes without taking into account the risk. What it does is factor those outs into each of the other categories similar to how outs are factored into stolen base percentage, which based on that percentage and run expectancy charts we can figure out if trying for extra bases was worth it or not. All the outs that a player like Theriot made on the basepaths are counted against him in one of those categories, depending on what type of out it was. But it breaks it down into several different kinds of situations, so it is easier to see if a player is too risky in one area but provides reward in another baserunning area.

On that note, keep track of how many times the Cubs make an out on the basepaths. That's also a very good idea. Obviously CS is already a stat, but there's no stat for getting thrown out at a base for being way too aggressive (either trying to take extra bases or trying to take 3rd on a ball hit to the left side). http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=421535 Care to translate? Each stat in the middle corresponds to a different part of baserunning. One deals with stolen base attempts, another one deals with advancing on groundouts, another one deals with advancing on flyouts, another one on advancing on base hits, and finally advancing on things like wild pitches. The value of the extra base is compared to how many outs are recorded and then it's calculated how many runs were created or lost in each category compared to an average runner. Each is factored into the stat on the very right, which is how efficient the player was on the bases overall.

On that note, keep track of how many times the Cubs make an out on the basepaths. That's also a very good idea. Obviously CS is already a stat, but there's no stat for getting thrown out at a base for being way too aggressive (either trying to take extra bases or trying to take 3rd on a ball hit to the left side). http://www.baseballprospectus.com/statistics/sortable/index.php?cid=421535 Thanks! Obviously baserunning wasn't one of the Cubs strengths last year, with Lee, Ramirez, Edmonds, and Soto all being so low. Theriot's baserunning was actually only a slight negative and better than most of the Cubs regulars. It looked like all the extra bases he took did a decent job of offsetting the huge amount of outs.

On that note, keep track of how many times the Cubs make an out on the basepaths. That's also a very good idea. Obviously CS is already a stat, but there's no stat for getting thrown out at a base for being way too aggressive (either trying to take extra bases or trying to take 3rd on a ball hit to the left side).

Quality Starts and quality start percentage are both listed on ESPN's statistics. If you go to individual pitching, then click on Expanded I, those two statistics are sortable on the very right side of the page. My suggestion if you want to do this is to avoid the stats that are easily calculated from stats that are available during the season. ISOD, ISOP, and other stats like that are easily done. One thing that I haven't seen any stats on is the value of the hit and run for the Cubs. What happens every time there is a stolen base attempt and a swing at the same time? There are lots of arguments on how much harm Lou is causing with using the hit and run as liberally as he does, but nobody ever has the data to prove anything one way or the other. I'd love to see the data.

Maybe so, but clearly Hendry has no interests in Ben Sheets and I doubt that will change. It seems to me with Hendry it is "Peavy or bust." Where has it been written that Hendry has no interest in Sheets? Bruce has said several times that they aren't particularly interested in Sheets because of the injury risk and being a type A free agent. One of those quotes is on the first page of the currently active Sheets thread.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The Streakmaster picks a certain number of matchups each day. Those matchups are the ones that he feels are the closest things to tossups in that day's action. That's why if a high profile game has one team favored by quite a bit, you will see some sort of prop bet instead on the game that is much more even. But everybody has the same matchups available to them if they are at 0 or 26 wins. What I meant was, are the games available to be picked different at all for different players? So if someone is at 26, let's say, are there fewer games or tougher picks available for them to make? Nope. The guy at 26 has the same options to pick from as everyone.

I'm not quite sure what you mean. The Streakmaster picks a certain number of matchups each day. Those matchups are the ones that he feels are the closest things to tossups in that day's action. That's why if a high profile game has one team favored by quite a bit, you will see some sort of prop bet instead on the game that is much more even. But everybody has the same matchups available to them if they are at 0 or 26 wins.

Free agent compensation drops off after the draft in June.

I may offer some unsolicited advice, if you don't mind. I know I said I would last year, but law school finals got in the way. I'm excited to be able to watch the draft for the first time in four years. I feel like the Colts are going back to their unpredictability. The recent Jackson-Addai-Gonzalez stretch was rather anticipated. This year, DT, CB, LB, RB, even another WR? I don't know; everyone will have them picking a DT, but I'm not so sure they won't be able to get a similarly talented DT in round 2. I would love some help. I would agree that all of those positions might get selected, although I think LB is unlikely with all 3 starters returning. I would add that they might even add yet another offensive lineman though. CB becomes a big need if they don't resign Hayden.

I have absolutely no idea what the Colts are going to do this year, but I guess neither does anyone else, so I might as well throw my hat into the ring with them.

BTW, the Billingsley computer rankings for top programs all-time has the same top 20 or so (in slightly different order) but very different in the last 5. His 5 best teams not on this list? Minnesota, Pittsburgh, Stanford, Michigan State, and Wisconsin. the 4 teams that are on the list he has ranked lower: Colorado at 31, Ole Miss at 32, Clemson at 38, and BYU at 66.

That just teaches me to not look at ESPN just because they were the quickest to jump between recruiting pages. Here is the rating of every player on their site who would be on each 2010/2011 team (just to show you that I really wasn't trying to change the numbers): Minnesota: 96, 93, 93, 89, 88, 85, 78, 76 Indiana: 96, 95, 93, 92, 92, 90, 89, 89, 89, 87, 78 Purdue: 97, 96, 93, 90, 90, 89, 89, 87, 87, 87, 40, 40, 40 Wisconsin: 97, 96, 93, 93, 91, 89, 89, 89, 89, 81, 40, 40 (97 and 96 both freshman in 2010) You can see where I am going with this. Of course, digging through some of the more recognized recruiting sites has very different rankings for several players which put IU in a much more negative light compared to some of the other programs. It's my mistake for talking in an area that I'm not proficient in (recruiting) and not presenting info from a variety of places. My apologies.

There's the issue. Who is Indiana a decent bet to finish ahead of next year or '10-'11? For next year, I've got their best case scenario as 8th in conference. For '10-'11, I'd think MSU, Purdue, Illinois, OSU, Wisconsin, and Minnesota are all pretty safe bets to finish ahead of IU. That leaves them as 7th at best fighting with 4 other teams with way more experienced talent. Looking at the recruits from 2007-2010: MSU? Definitely Purdue for 2010-2011 depends on if they have any more defections. Their next couple classes are not exciting in the slightest, so they really are depending on those 3 sophomores. If even 1 of them leaves Indiana would have a clear advantage over them in 2 years. Illinois-Essentially a year ahead of IU in the development scale. Probably ahead of IU but it depends on which star recruits are developed better. OSU-consider Matta a better recruiter than coach, but it's hard to argue with the continuing talent coming in Wisconsin-Bo Ryan will have them in the hunt like normal even with only mediocre recruiting. Minnesota-Their recruiting is definitely inferior to that of Indiana's. There are 4 schools that are bringing in the top recruits in the Big 10. Michigan State, Ohio State, Illinois, and Indiana. Wisconsin gets thrown in because of coaching. I honestly don't see the experience angle in 2010-2011. Some of the other schools will have some big seniors and some key freshman, while IU's key players will be juniors and sophomores. Not a huge difference. And IU will have just as many top players on their roster as most of the conference (with the probable exception of Michigan State and Ohio State). For 2009, IU will have a similar talent level as 2010 (as Exile said, they only have a possible 2 scholarships for the 10 recruiting class so that will be a mostly empty class) but the experience issue will be much more prominent. It's hard to tell if next year's team will be like 2008 Purdue though or if they'll develop more slowly.

I might have believed that before the season. But I really didn't expect Pritchard or Williams to be anything more than role players for their entire IU career. That would have left the freshman next year as the ones who would have to carry the team, which is way too much to expect of them. Pritchard has been a much better offensive player than I expected from the beginning of the year though, and Williams has really been flashing his skill the last few weeks. What they need now is to not be the only 2 players on the court who will shoot (frequently in the Penn State game it was those 2 and 3 others who won't even look at the basket). Add Watford, who I believe who will be a legitimate scorer from the beginning, and you have a pretty nice top 3 scoring threats. My projected starting lineup is also 6-4 (who was a post guy in high school and is a pretty good rebounder), 6-5, 6-8, 6-8, and 6-9. No giant players among them, but they aren't going to get outclassed size wise like they are on a regular basis this year. Also those 5 should be well above average defensively, especially on perimeter defense. The bench is solid in that scenario. Jones as your backup point guard is fine. Roth as a situational guy is absolutely fine. Dumes and Story getting a few minutes a game won't hurt you much at all. And then we'll see what they get from the other 4 recruits for next year, any of whom could join the rotation. They aren't going to be anything special. Poor 3 point shooting and no huge size advantages will make certain of that. But I have a hard time seeing why that lineup should not be projected as a low-tier tournament team next year.

Either next year or the year after. They get potentially 7 new bodies next year, so it really depends on how the team gels and how quickly. Their starting lineup for next year won't look anything like this year though: PG: Rivers SG: Williams SF: Watford PF: Elston C: Pritchard Backups: Dumes, Jones, Creek, Hulls, Miniru/Capobiano (one of these will be too raw and out of the rotation), Roth, Story Watford gives the team that 3rd scoring threat. Also that team will have a lot more height on the court than this year even if there still isn't a lot of heavy guys. Add to that a point guard with experience and most of the things that are killing IU this year will be different next year. They'll have plenty of depth so that the walkons who have been on the court a lot this year won't have to play. But that team will still be mostly filled with freshman and sophmores. My projected starting lineup has 3 freshman in it, and that's always a cause for worry. So depending on how mature they are when they get to the university, it will be either 09 or 10 (the only players IU loses after 09 are Dumes and Jobe, where their replacements will almost certainly be a collective upgrade).

How can you assume it was more watched because of the HFA thing? You did catch me there. I only have anecdotal evidence to back that up. I know many people including myself who have admitted they wouldn't have stayed up until 1:30 in the morning to watch an All-Star game without the allure of seeing which league won HFA. The interest on this site's game thread was incredible to the point where that is still the longest game thread on file even beating all the Cubs playoff games and Opening days (the site's archives go back 4 years). There was even a hatred of Dan Uggla that came out of the game that shows how many people were emotionally invested in the game, and that is something that was not happening for the most part in the 90's.

Really? I hate the idea. Alternating would be fine with me, whichever team had th best record in the regular season would also be nice. But the problem with the allstar game is that a team could potentially be screwed out of home field advantage by a pitcher - who is not on their team - giving up a run allowing the other team to win. Or in the case of last year, Dan Uggla forgetting how to play second base. It seems completely stupid to me to allow Uggla's craptastic inning/game to put a team for whom he does not play in any sort of advantage/disadvantage. And in alternating, your fate is tied to if it's an odd or even year. I'd rather it be decided by players on other teams than to have it be locked in to a particular league for absolutely no reason. Neither one has anything to do with what team actually deserves home field advantage, so might as well go with the one that provides a little bit of entertainment if they are the only two choices.

It's been 6 seasons now and shows no signs of stopping. Personally, I don't know why people would want to go back to alternating. At least the All-Star game method has the bonus of making the game slightly more exciting (it was much more watched last year than if it didn't mean anything) while alternating gives you no benefit at all that I can see. I'd of course much rather see them pick it by record of teams or who wins interleague play. But if those are out, I'd much rather see them keep the All-Star game thing going than go back to just alternating years.

Since the Pie thread is locked and I really don't think this deserves it's own thread, I'll throw this bit by Callis on Henry Williamson in here:

The story that was posted last page is one example, here's a quote from that article:

One reason that Dunn is getting so few offers is that he wants to play the OF. Some teams had interest in him as either a first baseman or DH, but Dunn wasn't particularly interested in that.