CubColtPacer

Wednesday showed the tradeoff of how important Theriot's bat could be in the lineup. That inning just showed the tradeoff of his defense-both the error and not being able to get a ball that a SS should get and instead having it go into LF. It's an interesting tradeoff, and one that will just have to continue to be monitored.

fouled out to third.

Reyes with 44 pitches through 2.

wonder where all those guys are going to hit in the lineup. My guess would be: Soriano/Theriot/Lee/Ramirez/Barrett/Murton/DeRosa/Pie.

I've heard one of the PTBNL might be the Athletics trying to get Koufax's rights from the Israeli's. The Reds were desperate to get him to have another left-hander in their bullpen. :D

For Colts fans, he really reminds us of a healthy Brandon Stokley-there is a pretty big contingent of Colts fans that say that if he's available at 32, the Colts have to take him. I would like him, but I'm not sure I'm quite completely in that camp.

I think that answers the question of if Lou was telling the truth when he said that Murton had a stiff back and that he would play him soon.

That's actually a great call. I'm kinda feeling that also... I have made this call just about every game. I'll be right one of these times. He had a hit in his pinch hit appearance, then a couple hits the last outing, right? I don't know that he "breaks out" but I could sure see a few good performances in a row here... He is 4 for 11 with 2 doubles since he came back.

That's what I think the Raiders should do as well.

I'm not sold on Russell either. I think Quinn may end up being an average QB, but I don't want an average player at any position with a top-5 pick in the draft. I think I'll stop debating this now because none of us really know whether he'll be good or bad in the NFL, and I know I'm just going to end up arguing with 5 ND fans about this, which will be futile. See my edit-I wouldn't draft Quinn either in the top 5, but I think he's the best QB out there this year. I have many of the same questions about Quinn as I did Leinhart last year.

So, 1 fantastic game, 2 great games, a decent game, and 2 bad games against good defenses. Curious what that averages out to overall, but Brady Quinn wasn't the reason ND looked bad in 3 games this year. There are college football QB ratings, not NFL QB ratings. Other games in 2006: Michigan State: 113.3 Purdue: 117.9 Stanford: 116.0 Navy: 150.8 UNC: 136.1 Air Force: 148.5 Army: 112.9 Actually, no they are not. You just posted what his performances would be on the NFL QB scale. For example, the Navy game he had a 210.72 on the college scale, and for Air Force he had a 234.67. You can find all his actual college ratings here: http://cfbstats.com/2006/player/513/60149.html my bad... it's confusing, because on his overall player page, ESPN lists his QB rating as 146, which obviously has to be on the college scale. But in the game log, it usees NFL scale. Stupid ESPN. Regardless, the numbers bear out that he played significantly better against bad teams. From the games I saw this year, it seemed like he struggled against more confusing defensive schemes, and especially against defenses with very good team speed. Just about every QB plays much better against bad teams in college. Russell certainly did. Quinn was really good against defensive schemes in 2005, and he didn't just lose that ability in 2006-what he lost was any idea of an offensive line. Against Michigan, the line played absolutely horribly. Against LSU, Quinn played probably his first truly bad game in 2 years. Edit: I want to add that I am very worried about Quinn being not great in the pros. However, it has nothing to do with his ability to play in big games-other then the LSU game (where the running game was the only thing to show up and Quinn did not) in every other big game Quinn did his best to carry the entire team by himself while everyone else faltered, even the receivers who dropped several key passes (in 2005 usually the whole offense showed up, but not the defense).

What's the difference? Level of competition makes it easier to get a higher rating in college? There are different scales for college and the NFL-truffle was probably looking at Quinn's ESPN site, which lists his ratings on the NFL scale, not the college one. why the crap do they do that? Probably because more people know what is good and bad based on the NFL one. Bukie's point from earlier on this page now stands though about the quality of most Quinn's games, and it gets even more pronounced when you look at 2005-he only had 1 game under 90 rating (NFL rating) in 2005, and that game was the USC game when Quinn led an 88 yard drive resulting in him running in what was supposed to be the game-winning TD with less than 2 minutes left.

What's the difference? Level of competition makes it easier to get a higher rating in college? There are different scales for college and the NFL-truffle was probably looking at Quinn's ESPN site, which lists his ratings on the NFL scale, not the college one.

So, 1 fantastic game, 2 great games, a decent game, and 2 bad games against good defenses. Curious what that averages out to overall, but Brady Quinn wasn't the reason ND looked bad in 3 games this year. There are college football QB ratings, not NFL QB ratings. Other games in 2006: Michigan State: 113.3 Purdue: 117.9 Stanford: 116.0 Navy: 150.8 UNC: 136.1 Air Force: 148.5 Army: 112.9 Actually, no they are not. You just posted what his performances would be on the NFL QB scale. For example, the Navy game he had a 210.72 on the college scale, and for Air Force he had a 234.67. You can find all his actual college ratings here: http://cfbstats.com/2006/player/513/60149.html

They are now reporting that the Houston-Denver trade doesn't exist. It wouldn't have made sense for them to have traded simply draft picks today anyway-that trade wouldn't come until it actually came to the Houston pick and Denver had a player in mind, but the report is now that there haven't even been serious discussions of a swap. Strange.

I feel sorry for the person that does if either QB ends up in Oakland. Neither of them are sure enough that if either one ends up in a system like that, the chances of busting go way, way up.

I would also send Ronny down. Lou won't stand to only have one utility IF for long, so one of the OF's will have to be moved. At that time, then I hope they pick Fontenot over Cedeno, and have Fontenot and Izturis on the bench at the ML level with Ronny as the starting SS at Iowa. I don't understand why they don't just send Murton down now, even if it's just until they get a chance to trade Jones. He's worthless on the bench and it's killing his value and learning curve. Ronny has a little upside, but I don't think enough so that it's worth sending him to AAA. I think his best value to the team is as a cheap utility man. I'd be all for the release of Izturis, if he can't be traded, and calling up Fontenot. But none of this is going to happen. If they were going to send Murton down, they already really missed their chance. Starting next week, even if he only plays against LHP he is going to play a good amount in May, as many of the teams that they face have multiple LHP's. There's no reason to send him down now, as he is going to be valuable to the team in the weeks ahead (and then of course he will get even more PT when Jones is traded).

um why? DFA Izturis and get someone useful on the bench. Fontenot can at least get on base. There is no reason for Izturis to be on this team when Ronny can be just as bad for so much less. Even if you sink the cost of Izturis, you are helping the team by removing him from the roster. Ronny has actually been worse, and if it is just for this season, the difference between their contracts doesn't really matter at this point. Besides, there are going to be injuries at other points in this year, and Theriot will be needed to fill in other places at times. Ronny has upside and a possible future. Plus, he has some power. Izturis has . . . well, nothing. Fontenot can fill the utility role just fine with Ronny at SS in an emergency. Actually, I would send Ronny to AAA and see if he can remember how to hit. I would also send Ronny down. Lou won't stand to only have one utility IF for long, so one of the OF's will have to be moved. At that time, then I hope they pick Fontenot over Cedeno, and have Fontenot and Izturis on the bench at the ML level with Ronny as the starting SS at Iowa.

um why? DFA Izturis and get someone useful on the bench. Fontenot can at least get on base. There is no reason for Izturis to be on this team when Ronny can be just as bad for so much less. Even if you sink the cost of Izturis, you are helping the team by removing him from the roster. Ronny has actually been worse, and if it is just for this season, the difference between their contracts doesn't really matter at this point. Besides, there are going to be injuries at other points in this year, and Theriot will be needed to fill in other places at times.

Wow, AAA? Well, if you're going to send him to AA what are you going to send Cedeno to, rookie ball?

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable. And again, so what if it become just another random playoff game during an unprecetended comback down 3-0? Does there have to be some stupid legend attached to it to lend his performance more gravity? Or, better, why should a Chicago Cubs message board, or anyone else outside Boston or New York care about the lastest salvo in the idiotic hype war that is Boston vs New York? If he faked it, wow, big deal, he's a drama queen, and Boston still wins the game and series. If he didn't, this writer's an idiot and Boston still won the game and series. This is a big steaming pile of who gives a crap. A lot of people love sports stories, and the best story is always a person overcoming the odds to perform. Sometimes that is a team that is not very big or talented but finds a way to win (this is not as much in pro sports, but more in high school and college-pretty much every team on the pro level is seen as talented). Sometimes it is the individual overcoming odds to win, and part of that is dealing with injury. Examples of teams (most of these have been seen in movies) Milan High school (Hoosiers) 1980 U.S. Olympic team N.C. State 1983 basketball Examples of players Willis Reed coming on to the court Kirk Gibson home run Michael Jordan flu game Schilling's performance etc. There are so many games, so many winners every year. Most of them are unremarkable. There were in fact 2 better games in that Red Sox-Yankees series, but nobody remembers those. It's all about the story-the one that grabs your attention and captivates your emotion. Maybe it doesn't do that for everybody, but this is a national story because games like that do that for a lot of people, and to hear now that our emotions might have been played with for the last few years would make me upset if I actually believed that the charges had any validity.

I think it would be tough for Angelo to make the original deal considering he already rejected it. If he can convince Snyder to throw in Mcintosh that would be ideal. It really all depends if he thinks Briggs is bluffing or not. I really believe that during the recent meeting between Briggs and Angelo, Jerry promised to continue to listen to trade offers and so I think he will do so. But I think it's important to remember that, according to league rules, Briggs is supposed to be "worth" 2 1st round picks straight up. I believe Jerry has that in the back of his mind --- a straight-up swap of 1st rounders, while it might be the best we can get, is way less than what the franchise rules say we should get. Two things with this argument: 1)The franchise rules were designed to protect the absolute best of the best. It makes sense-design the rules so that teams can get fair compensation if another team signs the very best free agent, and then teams can bargain down from there through trades for less than the best of the best. There are a lot of questions about if Briggs is great (many people think he's just very good) but even if the point is conceded that he's great, I don't think anybody would put him in the category of the top 3 or 4 players in the game, and those are the players who two first rounders are supposed to be fair compensation for. 2) Taking some draft economics, the Redskins offer is just about equal to two first round picks. One of the teams that has been very interested in Briggs is the Patriots. So what are the differences between this Redskins trade and the Patriots just out and out signing him? Redskins 6 pick (1600 points)-Bears 31 pick=1000 points. Patriots 24 pick (740) plus Patriots 60 pick (a first rounder next year is equal to a second rounder this year=300)=1040. There's not much difference, and the Redskins offer would have actually been better than the Patriots signing Briggs if the Patriots hadn't received a higher first rounder from Seattle this year that they would have to give up.

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable. But we know Schilling was hurt. The amazing thing was that he pitched at all. The question is whether blood actually soaked onto the sock, not whether or not it was a great performance following an impromptu surgery. And all evidence suggests it was real anyway. Oh, I would agree-there is absolutely no basis for the claims. It's ridiculous to even think that it could be paint-people are going into game 6 of the ALCS, and they are going to be worrying about painting a guy's sock? If the very small chance happened and it was true though, I'd feel quite deceived and angry-but thankfully, I know that's not going to be the case. It was an absolutely amazing performance-the visual evidence though just seemed to make it a little more memorable than for example T.O.'s miraculous comeback and great game in the Super Bowl (of course, the fact that the Red Sox went on to win the series helps a whole lot in that as well).

Because if it's fake, then that game simply becomes another random game. It's like if you suddenly said that Kirk Gibson wasn't hurt when he hit that home run for the Dodgers-it still would be a big home run, but the fact that he was hurt while doing it made it much more memorable.

Where are you finding inning by inning P/PA data ?? I calculated them by going to the play by play of each game-it actually didn't take as long as it sounds to do. They really should have something where you can find inning by inning P/PA data though-if you already have pitch by pitch (and all the major sites do), it's not that hard to see up a connecting data set.