Derwood

why don't olympic sprinters slide through the finish tape then?

getting hits isn't lucky? you mean that you, as a .500 hitter in high school, could place with the utmost precision every ball you made contact with? you never had hits just "fall in", or had a guy take a bad route to a fly ball, maybe stumble on his first step to the ball? ever heard of BABIP?

you're assuming we've all seen them? you've put out so many lists that i stopped looking

Sorry, its gone now. But it is not correct. Average is very important. There's a reason why that is the 1st stat shown when a player comes up to bat. It shows how good a hitter is. There are other stats that might tell more about a player, but there is no way that average isnt an important stat. You are a very good hitter if you can bat .300 over a season. Hopefully you have some other tools as well besides being a batting average hitter, but having a high average is a good stat to have. The reason average isn't that important is that it can't stand on it's own. If a guy has a .300 average but a (let's say) .320 OBP, he is not a good offensive player. It doesn't matter that he can hit for high average because overall he's making outs too often because he doesn't get on base in other ways. On the other hand, if a guy has a .240 average but a .370 OBP, he's a pretty good offensive player (might even be very good, depending on how much power he hits for), regardless of the low average. OBP encompasses BA and tells you more about the hitter on top of it. There's really not that much of a reason to look at his BA, other than if you want to evaluate how likely a player is to continue to perform at the level he has previously exhibited. In other words, you might want to look at it to see if a given player's OBP is highly batting average dependent, because if it is, without getting too far into detail about stuff like BABIP, it's probably less repeatable, particularly as the player ages. If a guy hits .240 hes a terrible hitter regardless of his OBP. Hits are better than walks. Hits can get you more than one base, and can actually drive in runs. Id rather have the .300 .320 guy, but it depends on his power and speed too. quick quiz: who is the better hitter? A) .264/.386/.554 B) .309/.356/.382

A HR is also better when there are people on base. And Soriano would be up with people on base more often in the 5 hole. These arguments arent about whether Soriano gives us value in the leadoff spot. Of course he gives us value there because he is a great player. But guys like him should be batting lower so that those HRs are not all solo shots. I think we need to move him out of the leadoff spot (only if we get a legit leadoff hitter like Roberts) so that he is more valuable to us. that's not my point. my point is that there is absolutely no way you can say that a walk by Roberts >>> a HR by Soriano when leading off an inning. okay, you can say it, but you're 100% wrong

everyone repeat after me: A HR IS THE BEST POSSIBLE OUTCOME OF ANY AT BAT IN ANY SITUATION some of you need to write this on the blackboard 100 times every day this week

just want to say that the Red Sox used to lead off with Kevin Youkilis. how many steals did he have again?

lot's of hyperbole going on here. there is a huge amount of gray area between a squeaky clean program and Huggins style coaching

25. Derrek Lee 26. Russell Martin 27. Joe Mauer 28. Brandon Phillips 29. Brian Roberts 30. BJ Upton 31. Derek Jeter 32. Corey Hart 33. Josh Beckett 34. Manny Ramirez

no, but to say that graduating players is more important than winning is usually a rationalization for having a mediocre but clean program

you'd trade graduating kids every year for a run of Final Four's. A lot of Indiana fans wouldn't. If I had a choice of a program who had 2 national championships, 2 other final 4 appearances, and in the tournament every time in a 10 year period but was run like Cincinnati was run in the 90's, or if I could have a program with 0 titles, 1 Final 4, and 8 tournament appearances in 10 years with a clean program, I'd very gladly take the latter. I'm just saying that it's not really important to coaches anymore. Heck, even Duke isn't graduating players anymore, and that used to be Coach K's "thing".

i'm still waiting for a pic of the fro

you'd trade graduating kids every year for a run of Final Four's.

Completely agree. They were already behind the Suns, Spurs and Lakers in terms of championship contenders before the deal and they still are after the deal. I can't blame the Mavs for going all-in. They're certainly close to the Finals. But I'd still take the three teams you listed before them (assuming somewhat healthy Shaq) and I really like Devin Harris. This is a gamble. i think even with a healthy Shaq the Suns are worse than they were with Marion. Shaq does not fit into an up-tempo, fast-break style offense AT ALL

Disagree. IU fans can be happy.* The coach does have to do things the right way, even the Indiana way. It's a different job than other top positions -- here, we care very deeply about class, ethics, playing the right way and recruiting our state. The position requires intangibles that others don't, but that doesn't mean it can't be filled correctly. As a fan, we've been hamstrung by a coach that couldn't do any of that (Davis) and a coach that sure isn't ethical (Sampson). Both those coaches were generally accepted early, but both squandered that support. *Sure, there are some that will never get over Coach Knight. I'll never get over his dismissal; however, I have moved on and desire to even more with the right coach. I think most are in this boat. i think people SAY they want things done the right way, but if a Sampson-esque coach won them a NC, they'd look the other way

Tyrelle Pryor got into it with some fans at his basketball game on Saturday. we'll see if there are any ramifications. apparently, police were involved but no arrests were made

the entire concept of "the social ideal of Indiana basketball" or whatever is going to guarantee fans will never be happy. as long as they fool themselves into thinking that a coach needs to "do things the right way" and "graduating the kids" etc. are as important as winning, no coach will ever be good enough

i'm still not sure why Meph is taking this so personally. if you think it's a bunk rumor, who cares? move on

You're right...people are reporting the Cubs are interested. Rosenthal: The Cubs aren't interested in Crisp. Miles: The Cubs really aren't interested in Crisp. Levine: If the Red Sox trade for Marquis, Crisp could be coming back, the second part is of course purely speculation. There are three things mainstream reporters have reported: 1. The Cubs would like to acquire a centerfielder. 2. The Red Sox would like to trade a centefielder, Coco Crisp. 3. The Cubs aren't interested in Coco Crisp. However Hoops says they are and some speculation by writers when the three above facts are apparent leads you to believe that they are proving him correct (when in fact they are proving him incorrect). okay, so why does this have your panties in such a bunch?

A bolweevil with a liver complaint vs. a platypus who's a mean drunk

best roids flip, um, i mean bat flip ever

Cintron = Izturis There you go. well cintron would = izturis if the plan is to start him. i'm thinking more along the lines of "first pinch-hitter every game regardless of situation"

Cintron = Macias '08

I think this is because it is easier to get highlights of Cub games since they are always on t.v. I know pretty much all teams are on t.v. now, but I think it is easier for them to get highlights from Comcast or WGN instead of some local affiliate or station owned by the team. i think they also prefer shots of day baseball

you can barely contain yourself That does seem to be the theme in this thread. I admit that I'm elated that another fan base will now be subjected to all that Dusty brings to the table. However, has anyone considered that the sun could possibly shine on even Baker's behind this year or next? How devestating would that be to Cubs fans? well the sun shone on ours in 2003, but we saw the cost of that