George Hayduke

http://media2.giphy.com/media/149d7gW4TMAMpO/200.gif

Wtf.this is almost as dumb as the Rizzo thing. Theo is the [expletive]. How dare he hate the man who has led his favorite baseball team to a .401 win percentage. I find Kyle and Mojo standing together in hand-clasped solidarity a rare yet heartwarming byproduct of this poll.

A friend just showed this to me for the first time yesterday, and I've been laughing about it ever since.

I've seen this mentioned a few times. Someone help a rookie...what is Cot's? It's the best, most in-depth source for baseball contracts that I know of. Word.

I've seen this mentioned a few times. Someone help a rookie...what is Cot's?

We'd have a WS title and a bunch of awesome recipes for Mexican food. Bonus.

Any of those four could very well be each of those respective things, but I think we're being a bit overzealous to think that this is a low end prediction of how all four will turn out. A pessimistic prediction may be that one becomes an all star, two are solid mlb players, and one flames out. someone's sarcasm meter is broken Yeah, totally missed the sarcasm there. I was thinking that was a bit of a crazy comment for CubinNY.

Any of those four could very well be each of those respective things, but I think we're being a bit overzealous to think that this is a low end prediction of how all four will turn out. A pessimistic prediction may be that one becomes an all star, two are solid mlb players, and one flames out.

major.league.ii.lou.brown.win.streak.mpeg

okay... 1) Hoyer saying that they need to add pitching to the system is referring to the current imbalance between position prospects and pitching prospects. It impacts the major league team eventually, but only downstream. 2) A lack of impact pitching in the current farm system does not in any form or fashion prevent the team from contending at the major league level. 3) The perception of a lack of pitching is more dire than the actual state of pitching in the system. The Cubs have already placed Hendricks and Wada into the rotation (Wada does technically count as a MLB prospect as he had never pitched there before). Corey Black, Pierce Johnson, CJ Edwards are all at AA. 4) The Cubs have received pitchers for next season in Doubront and Straily that have both had MLB success already in their careers. 5) The Cubs will have money to spend and no need to spend it on the position players or bullpen. I'm going to go out on a limb and suggest that they will use money to buy some pitching help for the major league team. 6) In Arrieta, the Cubs may very well have already found the "ace" for the team. In other words, what looks dire right now for the rotation is within easy reach of being fixed as early as this winter. 50% of the game is scoring runs and 50% of the game is preventing them. Preventing runs breaks down into pitching and defense. I've seen a variety of estimates of the importance of those two factors, but let's be generous and say that pitching is 75% of preventing runs. Your "bottom line" is worth about 37.5% of winning. At best. Pitchers are also much more volatile and a significantly worse investment than hitters. Not only is there the injury risk, but performance fluctuates much more for pitchers than hitters for a variety of reasons. As a result, it is a much, much better idea to build a great offensive and defensive team. Then you can plug in league average pitching and be a very good team. I agree with some of what you're saying, but I disagree with pitching being only 37.5% of winning. If you look at how many top teams over the years were loaded with pitching and got by with mediocre (at best) offenses. The overloaded offensive teams usually got shut down by pitching in a playoff situation. The reason that decent (or better) pitchers are overpaid is because they are the most valuable asset to a team. There are 9 defensive players, 9 offensive players, and only one pitcher at any time in the game. At the deadline, most contending teams are looking for more pitching (starter, loogy, closer, etc.). I hope you're right about spending some money to buy some pitching for the ML team. Hendricks and Wada have looked good so far, but it has a very small sample. Doubront and Straily are possibilities, but certainly not sure things. As for the rotation being fixed this winter, I posted in the trade deadline thread that the Reds were willing to listen to offers for Latos. Put a package together for Latos, sign a top starter, and suddenly you have a quality rotation to go along with the offense that we're hoping our prospects can provide. Didn't someone post something in a thread here not too long ago debunking the notion that offensive-heavy teams were shut down in the playoffs during the past decade or so? Basically showed that a bunch of WS winners of late had done so with average rotations. Or maybe I read it somewhere else?

I'd like to see the rankings you're talking about. As much because it'd be interesting to see sources for statistical analysis in college football as anything else. There's a huge difference between talking about guys doing dumb things on the field that cause their team to be penalized and talking about mythical "buckling down under pressure and showing some grit and heart" garbage. Florida averaged 7.9 penalties per game in 2013, the most in the SEC by a longshot (LSU next at 6.9). That's 121st worst in the nation for UF. That's real and it hurts, especially when you struggle to pick up first downs (113th in total offense). I will say, though, they turned the ball over less than I thought - only .8 per game (37th in nation). Tennessee was disturbingly pathetic at that, though (1.5 per game, good for 119th in nation). That's interesting. I frequent Football Outsiders for the NFL, but didn't know they ventured into college football. I'll have to look that over. That said, much like in baseball, sometimes teams simply underperform expected wins for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's fluky, sometimes it's because managers do dumb things that cost their team wins (excessive hit and runs, steals, etc). It's the same in football - sometimes underperforming is just a fluky thing that's a result of a injuries or variance, but sometimes you just have a terrible coach (Muschamp). http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/5/9/5698590/2014-college-football-rankings-advanced-stats - Bill Connelly's S&P+ projections, which is derived from a systematic analysis of every play of every game http://insider.espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10578520/alabama-oregon-lead-early-top-10-projections-2014-college-football - Brian Fremeau's Football Effeciency Index, which is drive-based instead of play or game-based (this is a link to the 2014 preseason index, but you gotta have ESPN Insider to view...if you just want to see how the index works, you can look at previous years' here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei) http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus - The F+ Index, which is a nifty meta-analytic combination of S&P+ and FEI (this is only done later in the season when there is enough data for it to actually be meaningful) http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10935532/florida-state-seminoles-lead-2014-preseason-football-power-index-ratings - Alok Pattani's FPI, which is OK. It's a decent analytic but the FPI tends to work better for NFL because part of the index is based on a team's performance from the previous few seasons, which is a problem in college for obvious reasons. RE: Florida's performance, you may be right. FWIW, a coworker of mine went to UT and feels confident if they can get past Utah St, then they can handle UF and will make it back to a bowl this year. I have doubts about that, but we'll see. Don't know if I've mentioned it yet, but welcome to the forum! :) I guess you kind of generally did a blanket welcome in the lurker coming out minor league thread the other day...but thanks! You are doing a great job here with this site! :good:

I'd like to see the rankings you're talking about. As much because it'd be interesting to see sources for statistical analysis in college football as anything else. There's a huge difference between talking about guys doing dumb things on the field that cause their team to be penalized and talking about mythical "buckling down under pressure and showing some grit and heart" garbage. Florida averaged 7.9 penalties per game in 2013, the most in the SEC by a longshot (LSU next at 6.9). That's 121st worst in the nation for UF. That's real and it hurts, especially when you struggle to pick up first downs (113th in total offense). I will say, though, they turned the ball over less than I thought - only .8 per game (37th in nation). Tennessee was disturbingly pathetic at that, though (1.5 per game, good for 119th in nation). That's interesting. I frequent Football Outsiders for the NFL, but didn't know they ventured into college football. I'll have to look that over. That said, much like in baseball, sometimes teams simply underperform expected wins for a variety of reasons. Sometimes it's fluky, sometimes it's because managers do dumb things that cost their team wins (excessive hit and runs, steals, etc). It's the same in football - sometimes underperforming is just a fluky thing that's a result of a injuries or variance, but sometimes you just have a terrible coach (Muschamp). http://www.footballstudyhall.com/2014/5/9/5698590/2014-college-football-rankings-advanced-stats - Bill Connelly's S&P+ projections, which is derived from a systematic analysis of every play of every game http://insider.espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10578520/alabama-oregon-lead-early-top-10-projections-2014-college-football - Brian Fremeau's Football Effeciency Index, which is drive-based instead of play or game-based (this is a link to the 2014 preseason index, but you gotta have ESPN Insider to view...if you just want to see how the index works, you can look at previous years' here: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/fei) http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/feiplus - The F+ Index, which is a nifty meta-analytic combination of S&P+ and FEI (this is only done later in the season when there is enough data for it to actually be meaningful) http://espn.go.com/college-football/story/_/id/10935532/florida-state-seminoles-lead-2014-preseason-football-power-index-ratings - Alok Pattani's FPI, which is OK. It's a decent analytic but the FPI tends to work better for NFL because part of the index is based on a team's performance from the previous few seasons, which is a problem in college for obvious reasons. RE: Florida's performance, you may be right. FWIW, a coworker of mine went to UT and feels confident if they can get past Utah St, then they can handle UF and will make it back to a bowl this year. I have doubts about that, but we'll see.

Preseason polls are silly, but based on who I know... Ranked too high off this: Bama, aTm, Texas Too low: Ole Miss, AZ State And I'm not even sure how K-State made the list...I don't think I've seen any other preseason rankings that had them breaking the top 40. Won't be surprised if they end up like 7-5.

I don't see Alabama staying #2. Alabama isn't all that, but they have a relatively easy schedule this year.

I think there's some overrating going on there. Too many questions marks for all the teams involved (even SC has some questions). I will say, though, the pitiful comment is based on what the SEC East historically has been. The rankings I look at are based on more objective statistical analysis (vs. say a preseason coaches' or sportswriters' poll). There's obviously an element of subjectivity even in those as you have to assign value to things like recruiting, but it makes it harder for a team to be simply overrated. I should point out too that when I'm talking about the strength of the SEC-E, I'm talking more about actual talent-level quality of the teams vs what I think the actual records will end up being (as we all know, there's not a direct 1:1 correlation between the two). And we saw what that mix resulted in for them last year. They're not going to be 4-8 again, but to win close games consistently you have to be disciplined and fundamentally sound. There are two definite things we know about Muschamp teams - they're undisciplined and they can't score. Not a good mix. This is fine to talk about generally, but that's like the baseball equivalent of saying, "to win close games consistently, you have to be able to buckle down under pressue and show some grit and heart"...kind of true in broad principle, but doesn't really mean much in terms of projecting how good a team will be. I don't know if you've ever checked out Football Outsiders, but they one of several really great websites for meaningful analysis....they take something like a SABR approach to football. Brian Fremeau has developed a nice statistical analytic called the Fremeau Efficiency Index. It basically breaks down offensive/defensive quality by how well executed a drive is. It takes out some of the statistical noise that can result from a couple of flukey plays in an otherwise well-executed performance that might turn into a loss. As a natural corollary to this, he has also developed something like a pythagorean W/L statistic for football...based on the efficiency of various drives, how many points and thus wins "should" a team have had. Basically, with their tough schedule and all of their flukey injuries, UF still underperformed their expeced # of wins by 0.4 wins...which sounds small but is statistically significant in a 12 game season (roughly equivalent to a MLB team underperforming their Pythag by ~5 wins). They were better last year than they looked on paper at the end of the season, and if they can stay healthy this year I expect their record will bounce back pretty well (and I think even less analytical observation of the team tends to support this, which is why their line is at 7.5).

I don't disagree, but I think the higher level of discussion itself is going to discourage your average passing fan from being as active here as they would at say a BleacherNation message board or somewhere else. Conversely, I think smarter fans looking for better conversation are going to be drawn to a board like this and away from some of those other places.

Well, I'd guess the minor league game day threads are slightly more popular these days... Still, it wasn't like it was some thread clearly labeled to be about lurkers or anything. If this random conversation generated this much of a response, who knows how many there really are in total. That's what I was saying yesterday. It's the middle of the afternoon on a Wednesday during a poor Cubs season and there are 25 - 30 guests browsing the forums right now, and another 20 - 25 registered users who rarely or never post also browsing. That's some solid lurkage right there.

Seconded.

I think you've been right on until this. They'll possibly realize that, but all too often, I think it's more likely that they'll defend their dumb opinion to the bitter end with whatever ridiculous strands of logic they can find. That's true. I guess I was speaking for myself there...I tend to be pretty objective in my thinking and I don't really have a problem admitting when I'm wrong, but I also recognize that way of responsing is pretty much in the minority among most people.

It's not that it makes you not post, but the majority of the time it isn't necessary. Most of the time, approaching a post from the position of, "That's wrong, and here's why..." is just as effective as, "ZOMG, you're such an idiot, and here's why..." Telling someone they're dumb is not necessary. Effectively break down their argument and they'll probably realize their post was dumb on their own. Well, the latter takes a lot more effort and this isn't a job, it's a time wasting device. It really doesn't seem to, judging by the posters who aren't sarcastic in most of their replies.

It's not that it makes you not post, but the majority of the time it isn't necessary. Most of the time, approaching a post from the position of, "That's wrong, and here's why..." is just as effective as, "ZOMG, you're such an idiot, and here's why..." Telling someone they're dumb is not necessary. Effectively break down their argument and they'll probably realize their post was dumb on their own.

Or we could try to correct those uninformed opinions. Let's not pretend that we don't enjoy when a meatball comes on here spouting ignorance and we all jump in to get our licks in. This exactly. As someone who has been reading these boards for years as an outsider, I can tell you there are obviously a bunch of smart posters here. But among those posters, there's a fairly sharp divide between the ones who use their knowledge to correct meatball-ish opinions and who actually do challenge you to think more critically about statistical analysis...and those who are just chomping at the bit to obliterate you with a scarcastic response and a snarky gif. I think everyone drifts into that territory from time to time (and maybe rightly so sometimes) but some people live there and it can be quite offputting to infrequent/non-posters. Just the two cents of someone kind of on the outside looking in.

I would be surprised if they made it to 7 wins, but o/u of 7.5 wins is a gift? They surely will be decided underdogs vs Bama, LSU, USC and FSU. Vandy is the only other you listed where you an say right now they'd even be favored. Even the brutal schedule notwithstanding, I just don't understand what they have shown you that gives you optimism. If you give UF Tenn and Vandy (which I think is reasonable), that should put them solidly at 6 wins. They may very well finish up 6-6, but I think with their defense pitted against other teams who lean more on offense than defense, I kind of think they'll pull off an upset against one of LSU, UGA, or Mizz. Even SC over UF in the Swamp isn't a gimmie, IMO. No way I'm giving them Tenn. In fact, after they go 1-1 in conference with KY and Bama, the Vol game could be the one that tells the tale for Fla. They lose that one in Knoxville and things could get ugly for that staff in Gainesville. UF over Tenn is definitely not a slam dunk, but I have little problem saying UF is a better team than Tenn by a safe margin, especially on defense. Anything can happen and probably will, but I think a healthy UF has at least 6 wins this year and a 7th wouldn't shock me at all. Admitedly, I think 8 wins is a reach.

I would be surprised if they made it to 7 wins, but o/u of 7.5 wins is a gift? They surely will be decided underdogs vs Bama, LSU, USC and FSU. Vandy is the only other you listed where you an say right now they'd even be favored. Even the brutal schedule notwithstanding, I just don't understand what they have shown you that gives you optimism. If you give UF Tenn and Vandy (which I think is reasonable), that should put them solidly at 6 wins. They may very well finish up 6-6, but I think with their defense pitted against other teams who lean more on offense than defense, I kind of think they'll pull off an upset against one of LSU, UGA, or Mizz. Even SC over UF in the Swamp isn't a gimmie, IMO.

Yep, you simply cannot win without being competitive in the trenches. That said they will probably inexplicably beat the Rebels in Oxford. I'm assuming they have some four stars stepping in and a juco or two that they purchased. Tennessee always has a ton of size. Yeah, Tenn has a bunch of young guys who are supposed to be all-world, so anything could happen, but I think they're still a few years away from being really relevant again.