CubColtPacer

Well, you have two downs to make this. If you don't, you save your three timeouts and use them on all three Patriots downs, forcing them to decide what to do, and you may get one more shot. One thing you absolutely do not do is call a timeout between third down and 4th down here...you need to have both plays called during this timeout.

It was legal then, though. No, it wasn't. Those rules have been in place since the early 1980's. They had just started to be called less and less until the referees were instructed to start calling the rulebook again in 2004.

Even as a Colts fan I can admit that the Giants have been mugging the Patriots receivers all the way down the field. Of course, that's the same thing the Patriots did in the Patriots/Rams Super Bowl and the Colts/Patriots AFCCG in 03, where the Patriots were only able to win because of just holding on to the receivers constantly. So I can't feel too bad for them.

The Giants guy moved, but he never went in to the neutral zone so he was fine. Does this feel like the Patriots-Rams game to anyone else? A great offensive team faces a huge underdog, and both times the offensive team faces pressure they have never had before which causes a defensive struggle.

He's been the biggest player for them in the playoffs. They wouldn't have beaten San Diego without some of his incredible catches. He never gets the headlines, but he has been one of the toughest players to stop throughout their SB runs.

You've always been allowed to challenge those types of penalties. 12 men on the field, illegal pass (quarterbacks crossing the line of scrimmage), illegal touch (going out of bounds and then coming back in and catching the pass). All of those are considered objective calls because they are conclusive by replay.

That first angle didn't look conclusive either way. It was very close. Hopefully we get another better one.

Yea, it's not like the Pats got shafted when the Giants fumbled and somehow came up with the ball after Woods clearly recovered and was down. The refs are trying to give it to the Pats, for sure. he didnt recover that fumble, it was in his legs. he never even had possession of it. The Pats guy fell on it and the ball was underneath his chest/stomach. I don't know where you saw the ball in his legs. on FOX Guess you're watching a different FOX channel than the rest of the universe is. To be fair, if the video showed conclusively that the Pats recovered, Belichick had every opportunity to challenge. The Giants didn't rush to the line and so the Patriots had plenty of time to look at the video upstairs, so they must not have thought it was conclusive.

Why do the Giants run a play before the 2 minute warning? The fact that it was an incomplete pass means they only gave the Pats around 5-6 extra seconds, but it could have been a lot more than that. That's the type of gameclock management you can't have against a great team.

That was a terrible spot. He was a full yard short, but I didn't expect the Giants to stop the Patriots on 3rd and 1 anyway.

UConn takes down another ranked team, this time Pittsburgh 60-53. They've catapulted themselves from a bubble team to a #5 seed just in the last couple of weeks.

I'll likely be ridiculed for this, but here goes anyway... So, a message board poster has it right, and ALL of baseball has it wrong? Come on, it's really not too difficult to figure out. The reason that the 9th is a much more important role, and *usually* the best place for a closer is due to the fact that you are down to your final 3 outs, if any, by that time in the game. You give up the lead in the 7th, you still have 6 or 9 outs offensively. In the 9th, the game is over, or you have 3 outs to play with. That is INCREDIBLY different, and it's why great closers are hard to come by. Pressure is much different in that situation, and it's why guys like Farnsworth can be very good middle relievers and subpar closers. Okay, NSB groupthinkers, flame away. I just think you can split it into 2 different roles. To be a closer the biggest thing you need is someone who is mentally tough, who can handle being the one to blow the game and have all that media pressure on you and still go out and perform the next night. Typically, it happens to be one of your better relief pitchers. However, if you have multiple relief pitchers who can handle the role of being the closer, then you can stick the worse one in the 9th and save the best pitchers for other key parts of the game. That's something the Cubs did very well last year. They put Dempster in the 9th, who had the mental makeup to be a closer. He did well protecting leads with nobody on in the 9th, and they saved their most dominant pitcher Marmol to come in with runners on and get key strikeouts to end innings. The Cubs wouldn't have had nearly as good of a bullpen if they had switched Dempster and Marmol's roles, even though Marmol was the much better pitcher. This year the Cubs are blessed with closer candidates. Howry, Dempster, Marmol, and Wood all seem to have the makeup to take on the role. Out of all of those, the only one I hope they don't pick to be the closer is Marmol because I believe his high strikeout totals are best utilized in getting other pitchers out of jams. He is the one guy who doesn't need the security of a little room for error that starting an inning gives you, and that's why I don't think he should be the closer. You certainly can't just stick anybody at closer. It's an important role that has a unique skill set attached to it for a relief pitcher. If your best reliever is the only one with the makeup to be a closer, then it's much better for him to be the closer then to see somebody else implode at that spot. At the same time, that skill set does not have to mean that your closer is your best reliever, and IMO it's typically better if you have multiple closer options and you can save the better one to use at the biggest point of a game.

Was that Lou or Jim? If it was Lou, the lack of mentioning SS as something he's uncomfortable with is a good starting indication that he might try him there eventually.

Not exactly. Daryle Ward is a lot better than Casey. They aren't even in the same ballpark. Murton is also probably a better bench player, although that one is a lot closer. How are we comparing Ward to Casey? Casey has had twice the career of Ward. I forgot Murton was still on the team, or assuming he wouldn't be. Casey has been declining the last 3 years and has never been a bench player. Ward has been the best pinch hitter in the entire league the last two years, putting up a .926 OPS and a 963 OPS respectively. If you were signing one to be a bench player, you would choose Casey? I certainly wouldn't. I would pick the one who has had recent success in that role rather than the guy who has continued to decline.

One extra point is there is no way DeRosa is going to make it to 650 PA even if he did bat leadoff. He wore down in 2006 and was very tired in 2007, and had less than 600 PA both years. So you can probably take .3 or .4 off DeRosa's adjusted production because I don't see much of a chance he makes it over 600 this year either. That nails it about right though. Add in .6 or .7 wins or so with DeRosa being the supersub, and you get about a 3 win difference overall. Then the question simply becomes is how much 3 wins is worth in terms of prospects.

Not exactly. Daryle Ward is a lot better than Casey. They aren't even in the same ballpark. Murton is also probably a better bench player, although that one is a lot closer.

And he certainly is doing that right now. Only 1 hour left.

i'm somewhat confused about how kosuke only has a 4.4 WARP with a .905 OPS and .401 OBP. seems like it'd be significantly higher than 4.4. i really hope he's that good, or close to it. soto posting that line would make me very happy. Fukudome's projected PT is probably way down on the model because of the injury last year, which is throwing off his WARP.

Well, it looks like PECOTA still loves Pie. That .479 slugging number is a little crazy for him. Last year PECOTA projected that the Cubs were going to have one of the best offenses and one of the worst pitching staffs in the National League. From looking at those hitting and pitching numbers, my guess is their prediction will be the same again this year, even though it turned out to be the opposite last year. Thanks JGalt for providing those numbers btw. It is much appreciated.

Speaking of PECOTA.... they're supposedly up now.

Uh, there's been at least 3 IU fans just in the last page say that IU is a deeply flawed team. How is that arrogant or delusional? I do think IU basketball fans can be very arrogant at times, but that was the wrong time to put that comment in. Most of the posts lately about IU have been anything but arrogant. Maybe he was making a reference to the post that claimed IU is as talented as anyone in the country, when in fact they are not. I would venture to say they are not the most talented team in the conference, a very bad one this year. Exactly what I was referencing. Overall, MSU probably has more talent. Outside of Gordon & White, there's nothing special there. If Gordon is actually injured, that makes them even more vulnerable. I don't like Illinois, but I can't wait to see the business EG gets in Champaign next week. That's going to be awesome. FYI: I have no opinion on Indiana basketball in general. I think Bob Knight is/was a great coach and its unfortunate that he wasn't able to finish his career there and have the court/stadium named after him and all of that stuff. I guess a lot of it is his own fault though. Overall, Michigan State has more talent. They have more depth of talent. But this is basketball where one or two players can make a huge difference. IU has, pretty easily, the best two players in the conference. I think that's enough to make a solid argument that IU's the most talented team in the conference. It depends if you're looking for quality or quantity. I think most coaches would take IU's roster over MSU's, OSU's or UW's. Obviously, they're nowhere near the most talented team in the country. Also, you're wrong about IU not having anything besides those Gordon and White. Bassett, Ellis, Crawford and even Ratliff (4-star recruit) and Holman (4-star recruit) have plenty of talent. Lol, MSU's roster is stuffed with talent. I don't think any coach would take your roster over MSUs. You have too many flaws. You have all shooting guards on the perimeter and no power forward. That's IU's flaw. Plenty of talent, but way too much redundancy. The team had 5 good shooting guard/small forward options, but no point guard or power forward. I would agree that IU has more talent, but MSU's talent is in more well rounded places, and that quite possibly makes them the better team.

The biggest issue is that there are no indications that the Padres are entertaining offers for Greene, and there was only one writer's speculation almost a year ago that they ever were. They are a contending team with no other SS. There is nothing the Cubs can offer them that can make them better in 2008 while giving up Greene (without being ridiculous and saying the Cubs could offer them Hill or something like that). Sure, it would be better that the Cubs got Greene than if the Cubs got Roberts if both were available. There's no reason why Greene would be available this offseason. Plus, in your trade scenarios, Fontenot or Theriot would start at second base, which is just as bad as having Theriot play at SS.

Nah, starting first baseman. I believe a starting first baseman is a starting corner infielder :D The only reason the Twins got so little out of Santana is the contract he was going to require. Nathan doesn't have that problem, and the benefit to getting Nathan would be nice for the Cubs, not not huge. Pass. They're not going to give him away when they can get 2 draft picks at the end of the year for him.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3225433 Ehh, I bet the other MLB teams they asked don't know too much because I think the Roberts thing is pretty much a cinch to be one of the deals Kenney said would happen. You don't say that if you haven't discussed the specifics. I'd give them 4 pieces if they didn't take Gallagher either, although I doubt they would do it. Marshall, Murton, Cedeno, and Patterson would be just fine with me, although again I doubt the Orioles would agree to it.

They might ask him, and Soriano might say no. If the Cubs somehow landed Roberts and Figgins, I could see Soriano agreeing to move down in the line up. If it's just Roberts, I think Soriano will say Roberts fits nicely in the 2 hole. There really is no reason to move Soriano down in the line up. Soriano scores runs in the lead off spot with the best of the lead off hitters in baseball. Jimmy Rollins was arguably the best lead off hitter in baseball last year with only an average OBP. Those 88 XBH's is what does it for him. Soriano has the capability of 88+ XBH's also, as he posted 80 XBH's last year in 135 games. I'm of the persuasion that could pretty much care less where Sori hits in the line-up, assuming it's in the top 5. But how ridiculous is it that "ask him" and "might say no" are real possibilities. I mean, when did it become the players choice? Does this not make anyone else feel...I dont know what word I'm looking for here....saddened to a point? It became the players choice when clubs started deciding that they could offer incentives besides money in order to get top people to sign with them. In the Cubs case, the incentive they offered Soriano was the leadoff spot. I don't think Soriano will say no, but I do think the Cubs should talk with him beforehand and explain to him what they want to do and see his reaction. Ultimately, I believe the final decision should be the clubs and what is best for them, but the feelings of your star that was promised something as an incentive should factor into the decision.