CubsInNC

Or showcasing at this point.

Thanks. That analysis made it much clearer, to at least me. I'm just hoping he's a serviceable 4-5. I'd like to see him keep us in the game, most of the time and give us 200+ innings. Barring the "flaw in the mechanics" theory, that's about all I can or should hope for from him.

QFT

Not trying to argue the point, but have you done statistical analysis on that year with regard to the rest of his career to see, statistically, how far outside the trend it ranges? Its been too long since my stats class to remember the term I'm referring to, maybe T-test and/or chi-square testing (thanks Wikipedia), but basically, to see if the values are truly inconsistant, or within some % of validity? Eh, there's a HUGE problem with doing that: Third variable/confounding variable/lurking variable/etc. Those methods you used are probability based, not this. When you run the regressions I think you come out to that 25% of run prevention is controlled directly by the pitchers (Ks/BBs,GBs, etc) the rest is dumb luck, park and defense. So trying to do anything on it is tough. There are ways to try to isolate these, but let's just say it's a pain and it won't tell us anything we don't already know. Mainly because the sample size will suck. One thing I can do is estimate the stdev for dERA or FIP minus the actual ERA. See how often he's on the extremes. Granted all that's going to tell us is that the cardinals defense is good, we already knew that. Maybe it's my lack of stats experience and ed-you-muh-kay-shun to see the difference here, but isn't using his past stats to determine his current/future performance probablity based? I don't understand how it's different. Yeah, there are a ton of variables from game to game, let alone year to year. But without probablity based "guessing" wouldn't PECOTA and the like just be as big of crap shoots as my preferred method of pulling numbers out of thin air? [/threadjack]

Not trying to argue the point, but have you done statistical analysis on that year with regard to the rest of his career to see, statistically, how far outside the trend it ranges? Its been too long since my stats class to remember the term I'm referring to, maybe T-test and/or chi-square testing (thanks Wikipedia), but basically, to see if the values are truly inconsistant, or within some % of validity?

That's code for From your article: DirecTV uses statistics that only 5,000 of the 500,000 subscriptions would not have access to DirecTV. That's all well and good. Did they factor in the number of people prohibited by lease agreements , neighborhood associations, or simply access to the proper direction in the sky from installing a dish and/or utilizing it? Just for the sake of argument let's assume that 45,000 of those households fall into at least 1 of those 3 categories. According to their published statements DirecTV claimed to have 230,000 of the 500,000 subscribers already. At $100mil/year assuming they get ALL of the previous subscribers, that comes down to $222 per household in fees and advertising revenue, just to break even. Not factoring in their costs in installing systems in each home who switches, their custom programming on the extra innings package, etc. And they are convinced that by their exclusivity and content they're going to get more subscribers than when the package was available from all 3 sources. That's sheer arrogance. Yes they'll likely convert more of their own previously existing subscribers into the package, but they're not likely to see a huge boom of new subscribers switching from alternate sources. In today's day and age of package deals, not many people have the money, let alone the desire to disrupt the package pricing to switch their TV to something else and pay full price for what's left behind. DirecTV isn't the bad guy here. Sure, they'll take advantage of their monopoly and jack up their rates, as well as ridiculous surcharges for HD content. But that is capitalism. MLB, is looking out for it's interests, namely profits. And that to, isn't against the law. Saying a big old screw you to those who can't/don't want their service, that's no different than any other business. I don't fault them for what they're doing. Just think it's gonna backfire pretty good for baseball and directv in the long run.

That's code for From your article: DirecTV uses statistics that only 5,000 of the 500,000 subscriptions would not have access to DirecTV. That's all well and good. Did they factor in the number of people prohibited by lease agreements , neighborhood associations, or simply access to the proper direction in the sky from installing a dish and/or utilizing it? Just for the sake of argument let's assume that 45,000 of those households fall into at least 1 of those 3 categories. According to their published statements DirecTV claimed to have 230,000 of the 500,000 subscribers already. At $100mil/year assuming they get ALL of the previous subscribers, that comes down to $222 per household in fees and advertising revenue, just to break even. Not factoring in their costs in installing systems in each home who switches, their custom programming on the extra innings package, etc. And they are convinced that by their exclusivity and content they're going to get more subscribers than when the package was available from all 3 sources. That's sheer arrogance. Yes they'll likely convert more of their own previously existing subscribers into the package, but they're not likely to see a huge boom of new subscribers switching from alternate sources. In today's day and age of package deals, not many people have the money, let alone the desire to disrupt the package pricing to switch their TV to something else and pay full price for what's left behind. DirecTV isn't the bad guy here. Sure, they'll take advantage of their monopoly and jack up their rates, as well as ridiculous surcharges for HD content. But that is capitalism. MLB, is looking out for it's interests, namely profits. And that to, isn't against the law. Saying a big old screw you to those who can't/don't want their service, that's no different than any other business. I don't fault them for what they're doing. Just think it's gonna backfire pretty good for baseball and directv in the long run.

Price reminding me of Prior is a bad thing when the only thing it reminds me of is how this kid was likely ruined by our management. Yeah Dusty and MacPhail are no longer with the team, but I still hold Hendry accountable for allowing Prior to be abused as much as he was. And I fear that given another stud pitcher this team/organization hasn't learned from its mistakes and we'd kill the kid's career. But make no mistake, if the 3rd pick came around and it was Price who was there, I'd still be very happy.

I doesn't matter who ever we pick is going to flame out.... I choose Wieters by default. I hate NC State with a passion so Brackman is a no go. I'd rather Ozzie G manage the Cubs over rely on an NC State alum... sorry to any who went there http://img56.imageshack.us/img56/8929/smiliebleh7qp.gif As for Price versus Wieters, I guess I'd rather say that the Cubs had more solid position prospects in their farm system. And Price reminds me too much of Prior and how we probably ruined him.

Gosh, who do you think we are the Sox? http://img410.imageshack.us/img410/4237/omgblinky3sm.gif

Basically, he's getting paid $108mil total from this season through 2010. Although in 2001 he agreed to defer $4mil/yr for 2007 & 2008, and $5mil/yr for 2009 and 2010. So, he's down to $23mil-$23mil-$22mil-$22mil for the seasons 2007-2010. *If* Texas's contributions to the salary after paying deferred money, are evenly distributed, that brings A-Rod down to a cost to any team of $17mil-$17mil-$16mil-$16mil for the 2007-2010 time frame. If the Yankees raise his salary for 2009 and 2010 $5mil/yr (their cost of $21mil) he doesn't get to opt out. To me, that's almost a feasible thing for them to do. http://www.rangerfans.com/roster/former/alex_rodriguez.html I had found that site as well, but it neglects to mention that the loss in money for A-Rod is due to a negotiated drop in interest rate for the deferred money. They say that he's lost money, but if you add up their numbers, he's actually several million ahead in that scenario ($249mil + $10mil in bonus - or $6mil from 01-03 if they include that in their scenario). No way, no how the MLBPA then, or now, let him give up guaranteed money. They let him re-negotiate the interest rate, and thus had to give their approval on that, not him dropping actual guaranteed funds from his contract. Both Rangerfans and mlb4u use data that doesn't add up. Check Cots. http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2004/12/alex-rodriguez_01.html

Basically, he's getting paid $108mil total from this season through 2010. Although in 2001 he agreed to defer $4mil/yr for 2007 & 2008, and $5mil/yr for 2009 and 2010. So, he's down to $23mil-$23mil-$22mil-$22mil for the seasons 2007-2010. *If* Texas's contributions to the salary after paying deferred money, are evenly distributed, that brings A-Rod down to a cost to any team of $17mil-$17mil-$16mil-$16mil for the 2007-2010 time frame. If the Yankees raise his salary for 2009 and 2010 $5mil/yr (their cost of $21mil) he doesn't get to opt out. To me, that's almost a feasible thing for them to do.

Looks like we've got at least 1 believer: Rotoworld reports C.J. Wilson (who likes the creative pitches) has talked to Tezuka and got a training device to go with the hr long instruction/bs session.

For those w/ the PC version (ick), EAMods.com has a 2007 pack that makes all the changes in 1 320meg file. Egads, but great none the less.

widely exaggerated over-dramatic speculation... darn we need the season to start. Or at least some rubber mats under Kerry's hot tub. We're goin' crazy.

Not buying the theory, or the method, yet. But it shows promise and potential. Like the concept, will be interesting to watch it unfold.

June 20th, @ The Ballpark in Arlington. And some details, if I may. 7th inning. Cubs up 5-0. After having hit 1 HR in game 1 of the series, and 2 already that night, the Rangers plunk Soriano. The benches are warned and the Cubs bring in Wood to plunk the first batter up in the 7th. Wood and Piniella are ejected.

Wouldn't that be: Jones + Gallagher + PTBNL for Ichiro, team he signs with first or 2nd round pick, and a supplemental pick? He's likely not going to sign with a bottom 15 team next year. To me Boston wouldn't be out of the picture.

Because when healthy he's a very good pitcher. But if he's healthy.. doesn't he already have a spot in the rotation.. why does he need to contend? because he needs to prove healthy. I'm confused. If he's pitching, doesn't that prove he's healthy? So why does he need to contend for a spot in the rotation if he can pitch? All he's really doing right now is "throwing off the mound." That's not really pitching. That's more like long-term arm loosening, I believe, rather than bearing down 95mph fastballs.

Cubs.com (not the best source) has the 40-man at 42, with Floyd and Samardzija being the most recent additions. That looks like a release and a trade for a minor leaguer are in order.

I'm worried about that too, but, Cliff Floyd very easily could have been told he's here to be a 4th OF. And the Cubs were going to pay him as such. But if someone gets hurt and we call on Cliff to fo out there 100 games this year, odds are that if he's healthy enough to be out there that much, he'll perform better than $3mil normally gets you. It's very possible that the hold up to this deal was because he wanted the extra money if he was going to play a lot and the 2 sides had a hard time reaching a deal on that end of the bargain.

Nothing wrong with Class A ballplayers. The AL East has a team full of 'em.

I realize the whole "sample size" issue, but I like the consistancy in his OBP over the span as well. Even in the playoffs when he struggled he still posted a .360 OBP. Good job Casey.

Per the update at rotoworld

When did they trade for Arod?!? I'd rather have Pujols over ARod. I'd rather have Pujols at 1B over A-Rod at 3rd. But I'd take A-Rod at SS over Pujols at 1B. And I'd take Pujols at DH over all of them. Huh? I'm not sure what you mean. Pujols at 1B has his detractions (defense and whatnot) plus the added chances for injury and fatigue. Put him at DH where he'd remain fresher longer, and face less possibility for injury and he's the best player in baseball by far.