UMFan83

[tweet] [/tweet]

[tweet] [/tweet] Have they tried having him recite Playboy articles as hes making the throws?

I honestly can't even wrap my head around whatever it is you're trying to say here. If the foundation of the argument rests on the win gap between 2015 and 2014, it is already extremely specious. That is literally the foundation of Sheehan citing the plexiglas principle. Did you read the article? If so send it to me please. The argument was that teams that improve by 20+ games often do so because they get both great improvements from their roster and benefit from good fortune. Some of the specific reasons he mentioned are: outlier seasons, injury luck (and specifically mentioned how durable the Cubs rotation was last year), Pythagorean variance (the Cubs were +7 there), and bullpen variance (which he said applies to the Cubs..not so sure but he said something about Grimm, strop and rondon having outlier years). There were some others too.

They are independent events. Luck doesn't really "even out". Whether we were lucky last season or not, we are equally likely to have good and bad luck in 2016. Correct. But many if not most of the teams that improve by 20 games get a boost from luck. And they could get the same or even better luck the next year maybe they will not follow the principle (1 of the 18 teams they looked at from recent years didn't follow this principle).

A big part of the plexiglass principle absolutely is variance due to luck. I get your argument that the 2014-2015 teams are vastly different. but my sleep deprived brain reminds me that he is talking about teams winning 20+ games over the previous year losing 5+ more games the next year. I think luck could easily account for all of that.

Meh, Bernstein basically read the entire article on the Score yesterday. I don't think the plexiglas principle is a terrible argument, when you look at it historically its been very accurate. It doesn't mean the Cubs are guaranteed to take a step back just that we can't necessarily count on being as healthy as we were last year (particularly with our starters), can't count on leading baseball in walk off wins, can't count on our young players not having sophomore slumps (which tbh is a dumber principle than plexiglas), can't count on the back end of the bullpen being as good and (relatively) consistent, etc. A lot can go wrong in a season, and the fact that Sheehan, who is a strong believer of the plexiglass principle, is still picking the Cubs to win the division and 90 games tells you a lot about how good and deep the Cubs are. It's a terrible argument. Anthony Rizzo is the only position player from the entirety of 2014 still on the team (sans late season callups for Baez and Soler). Our lineup we trotted out most days was Bonifacio/Lake/Rizzo/Castro/Olt/Schierholtz Castillo/Barney. With deadline fire sales. If you can convince me why that team should have any bearing on projecting the 2016 Cubs, then I salute you. Edit: David beat me. Yes, but the principle is not just players overperforming, it has a lot to do with luck evening out. The cubs played the 3rd most 1 run games last year and won 62% of them, they led the MLB in walk off wins, they went 13-5 in extra innings, their pythag was 90-72, their ace went 3.5 months giving up 4 ER total, they were slightly luckier than the average MLB team with regards to injuries, above average with regards to 'cluster luck' I don't claim to be a baseball savant at all and im sure my devil's advocate argument (yeah I actually don't believe the Cubs will suffer from much of a 'plexiglass principle') will be torn apart, but the argument (which is essentially 'i dont think the plexiglass principle is terrible) makes sense to me.

Meh, Bernstein basically read the entire article on the Score yesterday. I don't think the plexiglas principle is a terrible argument, when you look at it historically its been very accurate. It doesn't mean the Cubs are guaranteed to take a step back just that we can't necessarily count on being as healthy as we were last year (particularly with our starters), can't count on leading baseball in walk off wins, can't count on our young players not having sophomore slumps (which tbh is a dumber principle than plexiglas), can't count on the back end of the bullpen being as good and (relatively) consistent, etc. A lot can go wrong in a season, and the fact that Sheehan, who is a strong believer of the plexiglass principle, is still picking the Cubs to win the division and 90 games tells you a lot about how good and deep the Cubs are.

There really weren't any defensemen that were available that could be had for what the Hawks would be able/ willing to pay. I feel like Bowman went and got the best available players even if they didn't exactly fit their biggest single need. I expect the Hawks to be better 5 on 5 moving forward. Part of the problem their was they had a revolving door of not quite ready young guys mixed in with castoffs. The blue line is a real concern not only now but moving forward. Obviously the big name was Hamhuis. Not sure if Vancouver just didn't want to pull the trigger, because he should have been dealt somewhere, but their dumb FO didn't do it, but if they were willing to trade him, the Hawks certainly had enough pieces to pull the trigger. I would have been fine with either the Ladd or the MTL trade, and instead of the other one got some sort of piece on the blue line. I seriously have no idea how we got it done last year, other than Keith playing a billion minutes and some luck, but I know last year was probably the exception historically in terms of winning a cup with very little defensive depth. This year Seabrook has regressed quite a bit defensively, TVR has been a disappointment, Rozival is as bad as we expected, and none of the other rotating group of prospects and old guys has been able to establish themselves except to an extent Gustafsson. Obviously Bowman knows much more about hockey and building winning hockey teams more than I ever will, so maybe the issues are overstated or they believe someone will step up...but if we fail to win a cup because of the blue line, I will have to wonder why the Hawks made multiple 'mortgaging the future to win now" type of trades for rentals and not put a priority on defense.

I tell myself the Hawks are coasting and don't give in like I did the last 2 years when they struggled. But I keep reading the Committed Indian after games and they keep harping on how terrible the Hawks are at 5 on 5 this entire year and they are being held afloat by crazy good PP% and goalie play. Who knows, I'll be annoyed if we run out 4 strong lines in the playoffs but lose in the first or second round because we didn't get someone for the blue line.

Also just realized this is the last post before mine, 9 days ago. Since then we've been treated to another Rose injury, Pau out at least a few games with knee injury and Dunleavy with a stomach virus

Bulls are 6-1 against the top 2 teams in the East, 27-31 against everyone else

Yes would suck to go from proven production at RB and TE to question marks.

PFF also named the Bears one of their 5 winners of FA so far (only 3 of the 5 are actually teams)

We tied the Mariners yesterday. Had a 3-0 lead entering the 9th but Rondon allowed 3 runs to tie it. Today's lineup against SD: [tweet] [/tweet] Getting closer to seeing a full strength lineup. This one is missing Rizzo and Schwarber

My extra risky version of the bracket has Kansas, Texas A&M, Xavier and Utah in my Final Four. I'll have to create a bracket that is something between this and chalk but I really like Xavier and Utah. I'm probably giving Oregon a raw deal but I have them getting upset by St Joes in round 2.

https://tulsa.forums.rivals.com/forums/tu-basketball.10/ Tulsa fans speculating on NIT matchups before selection show started. Many of them weren't even expecting a 1 seed in NIT

Seriously. On no ones radar. Actually this was one of the weirdest brackets ever. I should be relieved Michigan is in but now I'm just mad they didn't get a bye over teams like Syracuse or Temple

Florida is a pretty bold inclusion.

I know enough people are tooting Michigans horn in the media so you're sick of hearing about it, but I didn't realize just how stupid RPI was until I read this article that said that Michigans RPI was being heavily weighed down by 2 teams they played - Bryant and Delaware State. Right now their RPI is like 56. If they scheduled 2 D2 schools instead of Bryant and Del State their RPI would be ~43 and would probably be a lot safer in the field. More extreme example, if Michigan scheduled 2 mid conference teams with RPIs around 150 and LOST to them instead of beating up Bryant and Del State their RPI would be around 50. I know I know, don't schedule crap schools and leave yourself open to the penalties of it, but it really shows how much some minor scheduling can alter your resume significantly.

So like is the Bears defense halfway decent now? I'm sure we could still use some pass rushing in the draft.

Guess what guys I'm a DePaul fan now for the purposes of this committee

Good game to have on TV Fowler with a HR Heyward with a single Rizzo with a solid 2 RBI single Candelario with a single and double

I actually sort of like them in a retro sorta way. I love them just about as much as I can love something Sox related.

Sox broadcast right?

Well that's a less fun answer