CubColtPacer

All players like LaHair have a chance to be real. But are the chances high enough to risk being given the amount of playing time needed to find out? That's the issue. In general, players like LaHair don't work out. Is LaHair an exception? Maybe. Can the Cubs afford to take the risk to find out? Probably not unless the other options are not that great because the downside of him busting would be too damaging to the team.

Nope. Throwing it near an eligible receiver trumps all. You have to get it past the line of scrimmage when you're out of the pocket.

Akers has made 2 of his 5 field goal attempts through the first quarter and a half.

The Dolphins actually have a positive point differential on the season as of this moment. That's pretty exceptional for a team trying to get to 3-7 on the season.

I have a hard time seeing Lake becoming a high enough OBP guy to warrant being anywhere near the top of a major league lineup...but then again, I suppose anybody could be anything. Yup. Lake's more of an interesting 7/8 guy type hitter. The Cubs would need one of 3B or LF badly upgraded (Vitters is a rather average to poor bat if he's playing LF) and Cespedes to be above average or better in that scenario or if Cespedes was just average they would need upgrades at both 3rd and LF. I don't think the lineup is that scary, but it definitely would need an upgrade or two to be a contending lineup.

Great, great point. Two .5 WAR players don't equal 1 WAR. It doesn't work that way. All you have are two .5 WAR guys sharing one position. In other words, two [expletive] players does not equal one mediocre player. If WAR is supposed to be additive it's any even worse metric than I assumed. In some ways, WAR is supposed to be added together. If you have two players who combined for all the at-bats at a position and nowhere else and they each put up 1 WAR, then together the position put up 2 WAR. That's perfectly valid. WAR is a counting stat and therefore is greatly affected by how much playing time a player receives. The problem becomes that it's never quite that easy. Players also get pinch-hit appearances and they play other positions from time to time. The value of those would have to be separated out from the value derived just from playing the position in question. Even if you had two players who only played one position, you would still have to account for the value of having lost an extra roster spot and how much that player could have contributed (but in that scenario, your other bench players would get extra playing time to make up for the loss of that bench spot, so a bench spot value would be very hard to calculate). So things get really tricky when trying to figure out how much a platoon will contribute.

Stanford is only up one at half too. That one is a really big game for at-large hopefuls. If Stanford finds a way to be driven out of the top 14 (which might take two more losses depending on how it shakes out) that would leave the Pac 12 without an at-large candidate. Right now, the Sugar Bowl may have to pick from 2 teams out of Michigan/Kansas State/Stanford/Boise State/maybe Baylor. After Michigan, there's no easy 2nd choice for a bowl in that scenario.

IMO, Oregon losing is bad for Alabama. I don't think there was any realistic scenario that Oregon passed Alabama. The only realistic way anybody passes Alabama at this point is avoiding the rematch and Oregon doesn't offer that (I don't think the not winning their conference thing will be a big deal). But what Oregon losing does do is eliminate the buffer between Alabama and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State. Those are the teams Alabama should be scared by and they'll get closer if Oregon loses (of course, that's assuming Oklahoma wins which isn't a safe assumption). Arkansas is also a big winner if Oregon loses. The higher they get in the BCS standings entering the game with LSU, the bigger chance they somehow jump Alabama with a win over LSU. It's still not very likely, but it gets more likely with Oregon or Oklahoma losses.

BTW, if Tulsa upsets Houston next week (which is very plausible), then it's likely that it will be a 2 loss TCU squad that goes to the BCS with the non-AQ automatic berth.

I would say a very strong case. LSU has easily the strongest resume if you just look at the big wins/loss category even with a loss. It isn't quite as strong if you look at their whole strength of schedule but it still stacks up as well as the Big 12 teams and Alabama and Arkansas and better than Oregon. It wouldn't be a travesty if they would be left out, but only if it was one of Alabama/Arkansas and Oklahoma/Oklahoma State that replaced them (I don't see how it would be fair to let Oregon go as they would have a worse resume than LSU+the small factor of head to head). And LSU would still have a very good argument.

Anybody have any idea who controls their own destiny in the Big East at this point? Does anybody? I tried to work through some of the tiebreakers and got really lost. After the early games, you have Louisville and Rutgers at 4-2, Cincinnati, West Virginia, and Pittsburgh at 3-2, and Connecticut at 2-3.

If they get into the top 14 of the BCS, they are eligible for an at large. There will be 3 at larges available. A 2nd SEC team will take one and probably the Oklahoma/Oklahoma State loser will take another. That leaves one left between whoever doesn't go to the Rose Bowl in the Pac 12 (probably Stanford), the Virginia/Tech Clemson loser, any Big 10 team eligible, or Boise State.

Southern League not doing so badly early against the SEC. South Carolina up 20-13 at halftime on the Citadel, Auburn up 7-0 on Samford middle of the first quarter, Furman up 8-0 on Florida mid first quarter, with the Alabama-Georgia Southern game not kicked off yet. Obviously the expectation is still that the SEC will still win big in all these games but they haven't been able to separate themselves yet.

The Red Sox have a bit of a 40-man roster crunch. A player who has to be protected is significantly less valuable to them. So Epstein says "Okay, you can have A or B." Cherington says "We prefer A, but he's Rule 5 eligible and we don't have a spot for him. Can you wait until after the draft? If he clears, we'll take him, otherwise B will do." But if A gets taken when otherwise the Cubs would have rostered him, suddenly they've lost A and B. Would they take that gamble just to pacify Boston? If they are offering him to Boston, then presumably they don't like him enough to roster him. Then not rostering that player suggests nothing about if they are being talked about with Boston which was the original point of discussion. It just says that the Cubs aren't interested in rostering them at this time-nothing more. Whether they are also being offered to Boston (and I agree that a non-rostered player is more valuable) is a separate matter.

The Red Sox have a bit of a 40-man roster crunch. A player who has to be protected is significantly less valuable to them. So Epstein says "Okay, you can have A or B." Cherington says "We prefer A, but he's Rule 5 eligible and we don't have a spot for him. Can you wait until after the draft? If he clears, we'll take him, otherwise B will do." But if A gets taken when otherwise the Cubs would have rostered him, suddenly they've lost A and B. Would they take that gamble just to pacify Boston?

Even before any moves were made, there were 33 guys on the roster. as of now, there should be 6 open spots. And PLEASE don't tell me they plan on tendering Koyie Hill a contract. He really has no business on the roster. They have to leave room for free agents as well. They can't fill the 40 man roster up to 40 or really anywhere close. But I am very surprised that they wouldn't protect Flaherty.

There's a whole lot more than that involved. Managing the workload of a pitching staff is completely different in the NL than in the AL. The way a roster is constructed is different. The decisions on how best to use a bench is harder. I can understand preferring the AL style of play to the NL (although I don't), but they are dramatically different. The NL is all about scarcity. You only have so many bullpen pitchers and so many bench players available, and you have to pick and choose where you maximize your advantage now or where you are going to take a risk in order to gain an advantage later on. The AL is all about maximizing your opportunity at every turn-putting your best players on the field and just fighting it out.

I'm not sure how much we can gather out of these games for IU. They're obviously much more athletic then the teams they're playing and are just overwhelming them. It is fun to be back in a position though where these games are not a struggle anymore. It will be interesting to see what happens when they come up against some teams that will test them. Watching them I can't help but think about next year either. Taking only 1 player out of the top 7-8 and replacing it with 5 freshman of which 3 of them will probably contribute immediately? This team could be good, but that team is very likely to be good to great. Plus that team will have to be one of the top 2-3 athletic teams in the Big 10.

Soriano's arm could have been more valuable even when converting less opportunities for assists. One would think that less people tried to take an extra base on him in 07 because of what he did in 06. Those baserunners have to be taken into account as part of the value of his arm. Another way of thinking of that is if he threw out a greater percentage of baserunners trying to take the extra base then he did in 06, his arm was even more efficient then it was before and more valuable. Of course that is incredibly hard to quantify, and taking a number which is that far to the extreme at face value is probably not the best course of action.

You would still need one more Lions loss, a Saints loss, and maybe a Giants loss to get a bye in that scenario. Of course, all of those are really likely so maybe you just had those as implied.

To be fair, Ramirez rather aggressively countered criticisms just a couple months ago (I believe it was Hollandsworth who he went after). They have every right to respond, but this isn't the first time his side has responded.

They're an onside recovery and Chris Relf extending the ball away from being 4-6. It's a joke. Alabama will take care of that next week though. In fairness, they aren't ranked by either poll and only even got votes in one poll. The computers don't take into account margin of victory which is why they are ranked so much higher in those. And the computers hate all the teams that the voters are putting at the end of the top 25. I didn't realize Georgia Southern was having such a good season. It will be interesting to see if voters realize that if Alabama struggles against them for the first quarter or two.

LSU dropping to Arkansas wouldn't by itself mess anything up. The SEC West 3-way tiebreaker - thanks to Stewart Mandel, I know this - is head to head among the top 2 teams of the 3 in the BCS rankings. In short, since Arkansas and Bama would surely leap past LSU if Arkansas beat the Tigers, Bama would go to the SEC title game based on head to head with Arkansas. If Bama then won the SEC title, and Okla St didn't lose a game, they'd play the Cowboys. If not, Bama/Oregon would be a very interesting title game matchup. I think the only way LSU drops behind Arkansas is if they get blown out. If they lose by a TD or less, I bet the voters would keep them ahead of Arkansas. I think the view of Arkansas would be the same as of Texas Tech a couple years ago with the three way tie in the Big 12. LSU has played a much tougher schedule than Arkansas and I think that keeps them in front. Bama also stays in front because they pounded Arkansas. I also agree that there's no way Oklahoma should play for the title with the loss to Texas Tech. I'd love to see an LSU-Oklahoma St. matchup for the title, though. If two teams play one excellent team and one mediocre team, and one team loses to the excellent team and beats the mediocre team, and the other team beats the excellent team and loses to the mediocre team, are you saying that makes the first team better than the second? Are you comparing Bama to LSU? Because that's not what I was doing at all. I'm saying that I don't think an LSU loss kills their chances at the SEC title game and the BCS title game. I think if LSU loses by a TD or less to Arkansas, that the voters and computers will still keep LSU ahead of Arkansas (as well they should because they still have a better resume). That means according to the tiebreaker, it would be H2H between LSU and Bama and since LSU won, they'd go to the SEC title game over Bama. If Arkansas rips LSU, then I think it goes the other way with the SEC teams being ranked Bama-Arkansas-LSU. I'm saying if Oklahoma has played a stronger schedule then somebody like Alabama or Oregon, then what does it matter who they lost to? That means they have a worse loss, but that also means they have better wins overall. And I agree with you that the computers will keep LSU ahead of Arkansas with a loss. I'm not quite sure what the polls will do. Arkansas would really benefit from a loss by Oklahoma or Oregon in that scenario because the closer they are to LSU going into that game, the more temptation there will be to drop LSU behind Arkansas (the old drop with a loss but don't drop too far theory of the pollsters).

Boise did land ahead of Houston, but I forgot that the minor conference team has to be a conference champion to qualify. So Houston will likely get into the BCS unless somebody upsets TCU.

LSU dropping to Arkansas wouldn't by itself mess anything up. The SEC West 3-way tiebreaker - thanks to Stewart Mandel, I know this - is head to head among the top 2 teams of the 3 in the BCS rankings. In short, since Arkansas and Bama would surely leap past LSU if Arkansas beat the Tigers, Bama would go to the SEC title game based on head to head with Arkansas. If Bama then won the SEC title, and Okla St didn't lose a game, they'd play the Cowboys. If not, Bama/Oregon would be a very interesting title game matchup. I think the only way LSU drops behind Arkansas is if they get blown out. If they lose by a TD or less, I bet the voters would keep them ahead of Arkansas. I think the view of Arkansas would be the same as of Texas Tech a couple years ago with the three way tie in the Big 12. LSU has played a much tougher schedule than Arkansas and I think that keeps them in front. Bama also stays in front because they pounded Arkansas. I also agree that there's no way Oklahoma should play for the title with the loss to Texas Tech. I'd love to see an LSU-Oklahoma St. matchup for the title, though. If two teams play one excellent team and one mediocre team, and one team loses to the excellent team and beats the mediocre team, and the other team beats the excellent team and loses to the mediocre team, are you saying that makes the first team better than the second?