CubColtPacer

Baylor is pretty dependent on how well they shoot. They're 6/22 from 3 point land right now. From watching most of their game though, I wouldn't be surprised to see Baylor get this within 6 points by the end of this game.

Teams get moved by seed line, yes, but often to account for conference conflicts. So, obviously teams don't get moved from the 8 line to the 9 line, or vice versa, since that doesn't do anything. Same with 4 to 5 and 2 to 3, which are the only other seed lines that are consecutively expected to be played. 1 seeds are never moved off the 1 seed line (since the whole bracket is built around those 1 seeds). If anything, the gap between a 2 and 3, a 4 and 5, or an 8 and 9 is smaller than it should be as the result of teams moving seed lines. The only team this year which obviously appeared to be moved down a line was Marquette (since there were already 4 BE teams in the 4/5/12/13 bracket in Pitt, UConn, ND and Villanova). They move many more teams than that though. For example, when Georgia came into the field 10 teams ended up getting moved just from that change alone.

Yuck. That's 13 walks now for Hill in only 12 1/3 innings. I'm not worried about him long-term, but he needs to find some semblance of control in the next start or two or it will bleed over into the season.

Why the .5's? The way I see it: Purdue - 6 seed - 1 win Michigan State - 5 seed - 1 win Wisconsin - 3 seed - 2 wins Indiana - 8 seed - 1 win Which comes out to 5 expected wins. Despite how consecutive-seed games may seem like toss-ups, the higher seed is still the expected favorite. I'm trying to account for those consecutive seed games, and yes I don't think that there is always a favorite there. The committee moves teams all the time 1 line up or down from how they rank them in order to make the bracket work. We have no idea which teams they moved during the process, so it makes sense to account for that by making consecutive seed game tossups. If I was actually doing a formula for it, I'd also make the difference smaller as you get to the higher number seeds. The difference between a typical 1 seed and a typical 2 seed is bigger than the difference between a typical 2 and a typical 3, and that continues all the way down the line. By the time you get to the 7-11 range, many of those teams are very similar as there is much smaller differences between each seed line.

Hmm, I wonder if the Big 10 can beat its expected record in this tournament after all. By their seeds, the Big 10 should win 5.5 games in this tournament 1 win for Pudue 1.5 for Michigan State 2.5 for Wisconsin .5 for Indiana They've got 1 now, and Purdue is well on their way to a 2nd. It would be nice to get to 6 or 7 to get a little bit of respect back for the conference.

I don't know if this is the right gameplan for Purdue. They are definitely letting Baylor dictate the pace.

A jump ball? Huh?

I don't agree. Xavier has just played really, really well the last 10 minutes. Georgia's done a decent job of not letting this completely get away from them. With these free throws, they can get it down to 3 again.

Wow, the 2:30 action could have a lot of good basketball in it. I had Xavier in the Sweet 16 even though I thought there was a decent chance of them losing to Georgia because there was nobody else among Purdue, Baylor, or Georgia that I felt at all good about going to the sweet 16. I'm not too concerned about my bracket this year. This time, I'm rooting for all the double digits.

To be honest, I'd rather keep that spot for roster flexibility. Upgrading your 6th bullpen guy doesn't end up making that much of a difference because that low in the bullpen shouldn't be getting important innings anyway. If we're trading Wuertz for something else, than Marte makes more sense as a 2nd left-hander.

I certainly hope not. Roberts has been historically terrible at the end of the season. If the Cubs traded for him now, they would try to counteract him wearing down by resting him more and giving DeRosa at-bats. If the deal doesn't happen until the trade deadline though, the Orioles aren't going to be resting one of their few marketable players very often. Basically, because of his history, I don't care how Roberts is hitting at the All-Star Break. If he is still with the Orioles at that time, I don't want him until at least next winter.

Dempster has 1 year left at 5 million. That expiring contract would definitely make teams more interested than Marquis who has 2 years left on his deal. My hope would be that Marquis and Lieber are in the rotation. Marquis will still benefit quite a bit from this wonderful defense behind him, so even though he'll likely have another bad FIP number at the end of the season, his ERA has a good shot of being pretty decent. Lieber will love the defense along with the ballpark that he's been so good in. He's also the one who has consistently stayed in range that is fine for the 4th/5th starter, so unless the spring had showed that he had fallen off the cliff (which it certainly hasn't, the low walk totals especially have been very encouraging) he should be given a chance to replicate those numbers once again. Dempster on the other hand is much less affected by the defense, and that makes him a poorer fit for the Cubs rotation. His problem is going to be if he can keep the walks down. My guess is that Dempster would be a roller coaster ride all season. He'll have higher than normal wonderful starts, and he'll have higher than normal awful starts. As for as trading Marquis, if it comes to that I think he'd go to the Orioles or maybe the Angels.

Ouch! i think that was a compliment, actually. you're not going to put him in the first tier (ie Victor Martinez, Jorge Posada, etc.) at this point in his career, so I think the writer was saying that outside of drafting a superstar catcher, you could do worse than Soto on your fantasy team Yeah 1st tier guys would be Vmart, Martin, McCann, Mauer, Posada. So they are saying he has as much upside as the #6 C in baseball. I could see Soto being just as good as Martin and McCann when you look at his skills overall. They might be better offensively, but doesn't Soto have the edge defensively? The article is for helping people with their fantasy baseball leagues. And I don't think Soto has an edge on Martin defensively. He probably does on McCann.

Lopez is pretty bad defensively. He has all the tools to be good, but has never put it together especially at short. At one time, his bat made up for those shortcomings. BTW, I'm not saying he might not be a bad buy low candidate. I was just answering the defensive question, and that really is that he is pretty decent at 2nd, but a pretty awful defensive SS.

Dempster went: 5.1 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 2 BB, 7 K The Cubs only have 4 hits on the day. 2 from Theriot (including a triple), 1 from Ramirez, and 1 from Blanco. The other Cubs highlight is that Fukudome threw out a runner at home.

Brian Cashman and Theo Epstein put up with the Santana trade from early November to the beginning of February when Santana was finally dealt to somebody else. And the Twins didn't even have a reason to wait on the trade like the Orioles did with the Bedard trade. Plus the thing that ended that trade is Minnesota decided that they were going to stop negotiating, ask for final offers, and make the decision right then. If they hadn't decided to do that the Yankees and Red Sox might still be waiting at their door. At the same time, I will say again what I said then. Opening Day. If the trade isn't done by then, the negotiations should stop and just let the players play for at least 6 weeks. If the Cubs still need Roberts after that period, they can always revisit it.

Not really. I wanted to imply not a blowout, and not usually a deficit either. If I really felt closers came in with only 1 run leads every time, then of course I would advocate that the best reliever be there. I know they don't do that though, and that's why I said in ideal situations your best reliever should not be your closer. To me, reliever importance should be this: 1 run lead tied 2 run lead 1 run deficit 3 run lead 2 run deficit etc. Closers typically only pitch with 1,2, or 3 run leads, but only occasionally in a tied ballgame. I'd like my best reliever to pitch earlier and primarily pitch in 1 run lead, tied, or 2 run lead ballgames. The best reliever also typically will have more flexibility than the closer, in which the best reliever will be well suited into coming in games with runners on in addition to the easier job of starting an inning, while closers only have to do that easier job.

This pretty much sums up my thoughts on the situation perfectly. Serious question: How can people watch LaTroy Hawking blow a whole season in one week in 2004, and then come back and say that it essentially doesn't matter who the closer is? The closer shouldn't be your best reliever, but he definitely has to have a certain mindset and willingness to close I agree. Closers have to be 2 things. 1) They have to be good mentally, and 2) They have to be a good reliever. Closers always come in with a small lead, so they are in almost all the important games. That doesn't mean your closer should be your best reliever. In fact, the ideal thing is to have 3 or 4 guys who are strong enough mentally to be closers and who are all pitching in only tight games. If you do this, then you can pick the 3rd or 4th best one to be your closer, and save your top 2 for situations with runners on. You also want to save your high strikeout guys and low walk guys for coming into games with runners on. Your other 3 or 4 relievers pitch when you have a big lead or a 2+ run deficit. The Cubs are blessed in this department. I believe all 3 rumored can close as far as having the mental makeup. When choosing between them, here's my thought process: Marmol is your best reliever, so you really don't want to waste him at closer. He also is your best strikeout guy, so he is your best choice to bring in when you need a strikeout in the 7th or 8th inning with runners on. Wood is a high strikeout guy, but he also is a high walk guy. That's not a good attribute for someone who you want to bring in with runners on. Wood is much better when he's allowed to start an inning, put runners on, but get out of the jam due to his high K rate and good stuff. IMO, if he can pitch back to back days this makes him the ideal closer. He always gets to start the inning and has free reign to get in and out of jams, and he's also effective in that spot. Howry has experience closing. He's not as big of a strikeout guy as Wood or Marmol. He's also a guy who you like to start an inning with, but for a different reason. He gets hitters out by precise location rather than good stuff, and so if he's brought on with runners on it's easier for hitters to get a bat on the ball for sacrifice flies or other things like that. At the same time, I would not put Howry into the closers role for this reason. We saw last year that he is either on or he's off. If his location is right, he can be dominating. When it's wrong and he gets into jams, his straight fastball continues to just catch too much of the plate and he usually has to get pulled before the inning is over. Managers don't have quick hooks for their closer, so I think Howry is a bad choice for the closer candidate. Let him pitch the 7th or 8th, and pull him out if after 2 or 3 hitters he's doing badly because his control is off.

Now that's an interesting combination that I don't think we've heard before. I think that is very fair for Roberts and Payton. The Cubs cave on Ceda, but then insist on including Marquis. The Orioles then insist to throw in Payton. I wouldn't even mind too much if the Cubs threw in a lesser included prospect that is outside their top 10 list.

I think that's the best solution, and I wish they would warm up to that idea. Neither Lou or Hendry seemed enthusiastic about the idea though. Lou is just moving Fukudome there as an emergency backup in case a trade falls through. I definitely agree with you that it would work though. That is a potent lineup against a lefty, and even if you take Roberts out it still is potent. Your 2nd worst hitter is out of the lineup on those days, and your worst hitter is much, much better against left-handers than right-ahnders.

Murton can't play CF. Hendry's not looking for a right-handed corner OF, he wants a right handed CF to complement Pie because of Pie's massive splits.

Lilly may have had a career year, but I'd call what Hill and Marshall did progression I'd probably call Marshall's a career year. He just doesn't have the stuff to be able to get much better than that ERA. His progression now would be to try to match or come close to that production over a longer number of innings. Hill was definitely progression. It would be a major disappointment if he didn't at least match those numbers this year.

since you were too busy to notice, only the Padres and Red Sox gave up less runs than the Cubs last year -- 17 teams scored more runs than the Cubs last year Accounting for Career seasons by Lilly, Hill, Marshall and a great half by Marquis. Replace Marshall and his sub 4.00 ERA with Dempster and his career starting ERA in the mid 4's, and then expect a regression by Lilly and we'll see where we stand. If Demster makes 32 starts with a 4.75 ERA this year, the Cubs will have a much better 5th starter than they did last year. Those numbers will improve if Dempster does that. The only thing we know about the other 4 starters is that Lilly will probably go down a little bit. The other 3 are decent options to go up or down, with the inclination being that Z and Hill will probably go up a bit and Marquis will probably go down a little bit. The rotation numbers will not likely go down significantly unless there's at least 1 injury.

Bayless was back for the conference tournament, where Arizona crushed OSU by 40 and lost a close one to Stanford. The actual RPI number makes very little difference. 12-4 in a BCS conference is still 12-4 in a BCS conference, and the 4th best conference by RPI. There's just no ignoring that, and the crazy situation of the conference tournament basically destroys the importance of it, aside from Georgia getting the auto bid. Essentially, since January, Kentucky has been, by far, the better team. RPI matters. The Committee mentions it when they want to bounce a team out near the end if it comes down to it. If anybody wants to know about how the committee selects teams and what criteria they use, this is probably a good thing to read Last year about a month before the tournament, they let the media come in and play like they were the committee and make a bracket. Here's a story about it: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=2758650 And if you're interested in the first link, here's another one: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2758770&sportCat=ncb There are a couple other links from other people involved in that process that has some otherwise not covered info that I can dig up if you want to read more. It's really quite fascinating IMO. And as for RPI, It was a nice read but we're talking writers, not the guys that made the decisions. Yes, but they were forced to do things just like the committee does them, and there were people there telling them how to proceed and what discussions were appropriate and what discussions were not.

Bayless was back for the conference tournament, where Arizona crushed OSU by 40 and lost a close one to Stanford. The actual RPI number makes very little difference. 12-4 in a BCS conference is still 12-4 in a BCS conference, and the 4th best conference by RPI. There's just no ignoring that, and the crazy situation of the conference tournament basically destroys the importance of it, aside from Georgia getting the auto bid. Essentially, since January, Kentucky has been, by far, the better team. RPI matters. The Committee mentions it when they want to bounce a team out near the end if it comes down to it. If anybody wants to know about how the committee selects teams and what criteria they use, this is probably a good thing to read Last year about a month before the tournament, they let the media come in and play like they were the committee and make a bracket. Here's a story about it: http://sports.espn.go.com/ncb/columns/story?columnist=katz_andy&id=2758650 And if you're interested in the first link, here's another one: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=forde_pat&id=2758770&sportCat=ncb There are a couple other links from other people involved in that process that has some otherwise not covered info that I can dig up if you want to read more. It's really quite fascinating IMO. And as for RPI,