Sammys Boombox

I wonder how that sad list of names compares to other teams percentages of successful first rounders. A lot of other teams lists are just as bad and some are worse. Surprisingly, the Cardinals is pretty rough: http://espn.go.com/mlb/draft/history/_/team/stl

List of the Cubs first picks since the draft began. Just in case anybody else was wanting to take a look. http://espn.go.com/mlb/draft/history/_/team/chc

the kid in little big league would have deftly outmaneuvered dale here, this was like the exact scenario they tested on him before he got the job I thought the exact same thing. I like Dale. I really hated this move. I'm not going to get worked up about it. There have been so many improvements in other areas, so the occasional head-scratcher is bearable.

I don't understand why you keep running and sacrificing in a game where you keep getting so many runners on base. Why give them more/better chances to make outs?

I haven't been on here in forever. I just have to come in and say that that was one of the dumbest moves I have seen in a long time.

Again, this argument all hinges on assuming Mizzou would lose at least 3 more games if they played similar schedules to Ohio St/Michigan St. Which is a large assumption when you look at how Mizzou has fared against Top 10 schools (4-1). No, the argument is that the rest of the top two seeds are clearly better teams based on efficiency ratings. Stop using coaches polls in your argument, you're way out of your league in the argument here. All I'm saying in that statement is that they have played well against good teams. You can't assume that a team would lose games that they haven't played against good schools, especially when they have played good teams well. And I seriously do want an explanation on how the SOS works in these efficiency ratings because you shouldn't be awarded for losing against good teams.

http://kenpom.com/ http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt1112.htm Missouri definitely did not get screwed. And even though they were eighth on the S-Curve, they ended up with the lowest ranked No. 1 seed in Michigan State anyway. So, schedule the teams that you'll beat by 15-20 instead of the teams you'll beat by 30. OK. Just stop. You clearly have no idea how the efficiency ratings work. Honestly, I do not. SOS is a factor, maybe not in the way I assumed. Do either of these take into account if you are murdering your opponents every night? Asking a serious question here. Also, another serious question. Do you honestly think that Missouri is only the 8th best team in the country? Or, do you think that their schedule did not allow them to prove that they were better than that? Would beating Oklahoma State have pushed them from 8th overall to 3rd or 4th? Would losing in the Big XII tournament to Baylor or kU in the championship have pushed them down to a 3 seed?

Again, this argument all hinges on assuming Mizzou would lose at least 3 more games if they played similar schedules to Ohio St/Michigan St. Which is a large assumption when you look at how Mizzou has fared against Top 10 schools (4-1).

http://kenpom.com/ http://www.usatoday.com/sports/sagarin/bkt1112.htm Missouri definitely did not get screwed. And even though they were eighth on the S-Curve, they ended up with the lowest ranked No. 1 seed in Michigan State anyway. So, schedule the teams that you'll beat by 15-20 instead of the teams you'll beat by 30. OK.

If Mizzou had been placed in the St. Louis bracket as a 2 seed, it would have been, no joke, one of the biggest screw jobs in the history of the tournament towards whoever was the 1 in that region. Come on. You think it's going to be much different for them that kU is there? They're going to pack the place.

First power conference team to win 30 and not get a 1 seed. You want to put them as the #5 overall? Fine. I'm not happy with it, but whatever. But to put them as the #8 overall and not put them in the St. Louis bracket? That's insane.

http://espn.go.com/mens-college-basketball/rankings Mizzou got screwed. That is all. EDIT: Actually, that's not all. They were 4-1 against teams that finished in the top 10 and the one loss was an OT loss by one on the road to the regular season conference champion. Yes, their non-conf SOS was weak, but they also killed nearly everyone they played non-conf and in conference. Is it better to be 27-7 and have played 3 more "tough" non-conf games, or to be 30-4? To put Michigan State ahead of Missouri you have to assume that Missouri would lose 3 more games than they did if they played Michigan State schedule. That's a large assumption. I wouldn't be so pissed if the committee had Mizzou as the 5th overall seed, but 8th overall is absolutely ludicrous. Again, the committee had to assume that Mizzou would lose nearly every "tough" game that they supposedly didn't schedule. Which would be fine if they were, say, 1-4 against kU and Baylor, but, no that's not what the record shows. At least they have a tourney in basketball.

Castro, Rizzo, and Szczur all bat in the same inning. I wonder how long it will be before we see that in Chicago.

That's what makes me the most angry. I think this shows that Bud (and I'm assuming most owners) are willing to make their playoffs a joke for money. Just come out and say it's about the money and apologize for hypothetically giving the 5th seed the chance to play more home games in the LDS than the team that finished with the best record in the league. I understand the reason they're doing it, but I think they should wait until next year if it means the 4 seed gets an unfair advantage. I'd rather have the 2 seed this year than the 1 seed. At least you know what city you're going too after your last game. Actually, the 3 seed may be the best seed to have this year... Hypothetical, if you're the 1 seed would you rather play the first three games at home and know what city you're going to be in for game 1 (yours)? Or, would you rather have the last 3 games at home? You can't assume you know how many games the series will go.

6 teams might make sense logistically, and I fear we are headed there eventually, but that is far too easy for teams to make the playoffs. If you are going to play a long 162 game season, it needs to mean something. The only change I would have made to the playoffs was increasing the divisional round to 7 games. In a game that relies so heavily on statistics, any system that involves 1, 2, or 3 game playoff series just has way too much randomness involved in the outcome. I am completely with you. If I were MLB dictator I would keep it at 4 (maybe with 2 divisions and 2 wild cards to avoid AL East scenario, but probably just leave it the way it was) and extend the LDS to 7 games.

5 teams is such a bad idea. I like 4 the most, but 6 makes a lot of sense too. 2 divisions. 4 wild cards. Wild card playoffs are a 3-game series. #3 vs. #6. #4 vs. #5. All 3 games are played in the the higher seeded teams park. I like the doubleheader idea. In future years you schedule the season to end on a Friday. Yeah, I know, it will be goofy. Have the doubleheaders on Saturday and any necessary game 3s on Sunday. Or, you could have the season end on Thursday. Have all the Game 1s on Friday night (no one can get eliminated so who cares if they overlap). Have all game 2s on Saturday on two different networks. Stagger the games so their start times are about 2.5 hours apart (12:00, 2:30, 5:00, 7:30 CT). Play any necessary game 3s on Sunday. The two teams that win advance to a 5-game division series with the recent format of 2-2-1. 7-game league championship series. 2-3-2. 7-game world series. 2-3-2. This format fosters more chances for meaningful regular season races. Winning the division is important because you get a bye. Winning the first two wild cards is important because you get all three games in your home park. Obviously, there will also be a race between the last team in and the first team out. Also, you could potentially get 5th in your division and still make the playoffs. So, no more AL East scenarios. Ever.

Haith should have never slowed it down on offense so early.

Refs giving this game to Kansas. Utter BS.

Any idea where the NL Central teams landed? I know the AL Central looks like this. 11. Royals 12. Tigers 25. Twins 27. Indians 28. White Sox I'm sure the Royals currently being about middle of the road at the MLB level, having I'm guessing one of the top 3 farm systems, and I'm sure they have "mobility" and money to spend are reasons they've landed this high. I'll be curious to see if they actually are going to spend the money when it's time for the prospects to get paid. Their owner (David Glass) has the money and has been pocketing large profits from the team for years. He has been operating the same way for such a long time that I just don't see him changing his ways. That is where this system is flawed. The Royals are in a position to be very strong in the future, but if you look at the track record of their owner they should get very poor management scores.

Anybody know why the Cell's capacity has dropped from 47,xxx to 41,xxx since 2003? Did they add a bunch of suites?

Any idea what level he would start at in 2012?

There are plenty of dumb remarks that you can attack without assuming you know what somebody is thinking. So just stop. That highlighted quote was nowhere near what I was thinking. If you need to add words to somebody's post to make it easier to trash their post, then maybe you should step back and make sure the post is worth trashing. I am a pessimist when it comes to the Cubs. I'm excited about this year purely for the moves and the chance to see young guys develop. Nothing more. I always use quotes when talking about media "experts." I would post the same way if we were the favorite to win the division and they said we will win the division. Maybe I should have used the word "surprised" instead of "ridiculous." My bad. So, hopefully you can see that you read way too much into one sentence.

That's not the part of your post that I highlighted. I have no idea where that came from, other than you putting words in my mouth. I genuinely want to know where you all think they will land. That's why I asked. Why do I think it's ridiculous to say they will lose 100 games? I don't think the MLB roster is a whole lot worse than last year, and the rest of the division has gotten worse (besides Cincy).

Uh, what? Where did you get that?

That's some solid math and even better logic. I should point out that they said, "therfore about 6 AL teams will lose 95-100 games." That is NOT my logic.