dew1679666265

They think we don't get enough of him announcing all through baseball and football season? :? I could do without him myself.

Yep. Despite his wretched beginning of the season, he's about at his 40th percentile PECOTA projection, so he hasn't quite put up the numbers expected of him, but he's headed in the right direction. Even if he cools off a little bit, he should end up doing about what was expected of him before the season started. And with Lee back in the lineup (and hopefully a couple more bats) next year, he should continue like this all year next season. Pretty much. He's projected to decline slightly each year until 2010, when the decline is projected to be a little more pronounced. Wonder why they think he'll decline every year? Not like he's old.

Yep. Despite his wretched beginning of the season, he's about at his 40th percentile PECOTA projection, so he hasn't quite put up the numbers expected of him, but he's headed in the right direction. Even if he cools off a little bit, he should end up doing about what was expected of him before the season started. And with Lee back in the lineup (and hopefully a couple more bats) next year, he should continue like this all year next season.

True, he's still not close to where I'd like him, but he's slowly moving that way. Hopefully this will continue and he'll turn out well.

What is there to choose from ?? ............ 04/03 - 08/12 AB R H 2B 3B HR TB RBI BB SO BA OBP SLG OPS Cedeno 386 35 96 10 5 4 128 29 12 76 0.249 0.274 0.332 0.605 Perez 217 25 55 12 1 2 75 24 5 21 0.253 0.267 0.346 0.612 Oh, definitely-it's not as there is a much better option on the roster. If they are all terrible though, I'd prefer Cedeno or Theriot to get the start at this point. It's not something that I'm worried about whatsoever-it's not like one start a week is going to be the difference between those two players developing or not though. Could it be that Dusty is helping out Cedeno and Theriot by sitting them against a submariner who is very tough against righties? I'd much rather see Cedeno or Theriot any day but maybe it's better if they're going to sit, that they sit today.

Junior Glymph has actually looked really good tonight as well. He's had 2 sacks and 2FF's that I've caught. Ellis did a much better job than I was expecting against the pass and when covering the QB when he rolled out of the pocket. I think the move will work pretty good, but our LB's are pretty stacked right now. Ellis, James, Shanle, and Ware got the start but we've also got Carpenter, Ayodele, Singleton, and Burnett as well. I really don't care about the offense, this defense is getting me jacked up already. I think ya'll are going to like Kevin Burnett. At Tennessee, he was the best player on some very solid defenses. He plays very hard and was beginning to get some comparisons to perhaps the greatest linebacker to ever play at Tennessee, Al Wilson. While I don't think he'll ever get that good, I think he'll be a starter for ya'll for a very long time. He's flashed quite a bit of skill, but a hip injury early in the season didn't help and then he tore his ACL near the end of his season. Right now he's stuck behind Ware at the ROLB (weak side). I think that Carpenter will ultimately affect what happens with Burnett. Ware and James are locks at ROLB and LILB respectively; Carpenter has been working at both RILB and LOLB. I believe that eventually Carpenter will be the starter at LOLB, which leaves Burnett to battle with Ayodele at RILB. Unfortunately Burnett will probably be the odd man out for right now with both Singleton and Ellis at LOLB, Ayodele with the rather large FA contract, and Carpenter as a mid-first rounder this past year. It really is too bad, but Bill does like his style of play and will find a spot for him somewhere. Honestly, I think Ayodele is solid but possibly as soon as next season the only thing keeping Burnett behind Ayodele would be Ayodele's big contract. I'm hoping ya'll can find a spot for him like you did with that other former Vol, Jason Witten (he seemed to turn out well :) )

Junior Glymph has actually looked really good tonight as well. He's had 2 sacks and 2FF's that I've caught. Ellis did a much better job than I was expecting against the pass and when covering the QB when he rolled out of the pocket. I think the move will work pretty good, but our LB's are pretty stacked right now. Ellis, James, Shanle, and Ware got the start but we've also got Carpenter, Ayodele, Singleton, and Burnett as well. I really don't care about the offense, this defense is getting me jacked up already. I think ya'll are going to like Kevin Burnett. At Tennessee, he was the best player on some very solid defenses. He plays very hard and was beginning to get some comparisons to perhaps the greatest linebacker to ever play at Tennessee, Al Wilson. While I don't think he'll ever get that good, I think he'll be a starter for ya'll for a very long time.

I couldn't help but laugh at this. If we sent out a hitman to make the preseason game easier then we sent him out against the wrong quarterback. :) That is quite funny though.

Great. We already wasted an early first rounder last year on a punk (Pacman Jones) return man. I was afraid when we took LenDale something like this would happen. Oh well, at least there will be a little action this season as we take our learning curve to a 4-12 season again. At least we've got Vince Young. It'll be fun to watch him around the second half of the year. Is Vince Young the starter this year? He probably won't open the season as the starter, Billy Volek is a pretty good QB and has a solid base in that offense. Young probably will become the starter at some point but he still has several adjustments he needs to make to his game to adapt it to the pro level. That's not surprising at all. I didn't think Young would be named the starter right away especially with Volek there who, as you said, is a decent quarterback. Billy is the starter for opening day, that's all that's been announced for sure. Vince, as texascub said, has some stuff to learn in order to play at the NFL level. Also, Jeff Fisher has a history of bringing players along slowly (Steve McNair was drafted in '95 and didn't start full time till '97) so I think he'll take that route with Vince, just not that dramatic. From everthing I've heard I suspect Vince will get a large amount of playing time around the second half of the season and start full time next season. Volek, in my opinion, is more than serviceable and could start for a few teams. McNair was better, but not significantly anymore. edit: BTW, Vince looked very solid in his first preseason game tonight. This kid will be a stud, very comparable to a young Steve McNair.

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season. So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same. why do you insist in speaking matter-of-factly? where did i say that you should only analyze with statistics? nowhere. in many cases, i've found, people who tell others to "go watch the games" watch less games than their counterparts anyway. i watch most games, and i try not to make judgements based on outlying anomalies. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you but this seems to be questioning the validity of non-statistical analysis (anecdotes as you call them). I'm also not telling you to "go watch the game" since I assume that most on the board watch around the same as I do. I just was attempting to debate what I viewed as some disregarding any view not metric-based. I feel there is value in a balanced analysis of the game. i still don't see how anything that you've quoted me as saying states that you should only analyze statistically. furthermore, "anecdotes" is a word in the english language--it's not like i'm the only one who uses the term. you make it sound like i'm using a clingon word or something. the word "anecdote" means, according to the english dictionary, "a short account of an interesting or humorous incident". with "anecdotes" being the plural form. I understand what an anecdote is. The issue that I have is that these quotes show, whether intentional by you or not, a feeling that one cannot trust what their eyes see and must therefore rely mainly if not completely on metrics. My feeling is that a balance between the two is ideal. I also don't see how CCP's reference to an anomaly in the metrics is appropriately referred to as a "short account of an interesting or humorous incident". To me, it's an anomaly which makes one think about the overarching validity of some metrics, not all but some perhaps. I quite liked Pedro's explanation of metrics and tend to believe that "taken with a grain of salt" means we should balance the metrics that may not be developed enough yet with another means of analysis. first of all, a baseball season is such a long one that you absolutely cannot trust your eyes. the eyes do not generally know the difference between a .250 hitter and a .300 hitter, for example, which is quite a large difference. i'd rather put all of my faith in numbers than anecdotes--but as you say, there should be a balance, just not a 50-50 balance, not by a long shot. watching games is fun and going to games is more fun, but even if you watch every single one of them, you aren't going to remember what each player does from day to day in every game from april to october. I actually agree with much of what you say here except I am confused as to what you balance the stats with if you "absolutely cannot trust your eyes". I don't believe you should put all your faith in either, because neither is infallible. There are pluses to stats/metrics and pluses to using your eyes to see how good a route runner an outfielder is, etc. Using this balance, it's very possible that you will recognize anomalies such as Sammy being better than Ichiro, or Andruw Jones being a bottom 4 centerfielder defensively.

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season. So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same. why do you insist in speaking matter-of-factly? where did i say that you should only analyze with statistics? nowhere. in many cases, i've found, people who tell others to "go watch the games" watch less games than their counterparts anyway. i watch most games, and i try not to make judgements based on outlying anomalies. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you but this seems to be questioning the validity of non-statistical analysis (anecdotes as you call them). I'm also not telling you to "go watch the game" since I assume that most on the board watch around the same as I do. I just was attempting to debate what I viewed as some disregarding any view not metric-based. I feel there is value in a balanced analysis of the game. i still don't see how anything that you've quoted me as saying states that you should only analyze statistically. furthermore, "anecdotes" is a word in the english language--it's not like i'm the only one who uses the term. you make it sound like i'm using a clingon word or something. the word "anecdote" means, according to the english dictionary, "a short account of an interesting or humorous incident". with "anecdotes" being the plural form. I understand what an anecdote is. The issue that I have is that these quotes show, whether intentional by you or not, a feeling that one cannot trust what their eyes see and must therefore rely mainly if not completely on metrics. My feeling is that a balance between the two is ideal. I also don't see how CCP's reference to an anomaly in the metrics is appropriately referred to as a "short account of an interesting or humorous incident". To me, it's an anomaly which makes one think about the overarching validity of some metrics, not all but some perhaps. I quite liked Pedro's explanation of metrics and tend to believe that "taken with a grain of salt" means we should balance the metrics that may not be developed enough yet with another means of analysis.

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season. So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same. why do you insist in speaking matter-of-factly? where did i say that you should only analyze with statistics? nowhere. in many cases, i've found, people who tell others to "go watch the games" watch less games than their counterparts anyway. i watch most games, and i try not to make judgements based on outlying anomalies. Correct me if I'm misunderstanding you but this seems to be questioning the validity of non-statistical analysis (anecdotes as you call them). I'm also not telling you to "go watch the game" since I assume that most on the board watch around the same as I do. I just was attempting to debate what I viewed as some disregarding any view not metric-based. I feel there is value in a balanced analysis of the game.

Except for the 2 times that they were turned down from BCS. Would you like to provide the years that they were eligible for the BCS and got turned down? Since the BCS has been in existence, Notre Dame has been eligible 3 times-2000, 2002, 2005-they've been invited twice Edit: Actually, my mistake on this one. I originally thought they had been invited all 3 times, but then I realized that they had not been invited in 02 with 9 wins-the more I think about it though, I seem to remember that there was no choice-there were no at large bids available that year, as Iowa and Washington State both got in automatically due to their top 6 BCS ranking, even though they were both the second best team in thier conference (Ohio State and USC were above those two). So ND had no chance to be invited that year)-so they were invited both times the bowls had a spot to give them. I knew they wouldn't turn you media darlings down. :P Hey, at least ND has had a quality team every time-unlike BCS teams like Pittsburgh, and Florida State (of course, not their NC year-but they've made it at least twice when they were an average team at best with 3 or 4 losses on the season already). ND is forced to be at least on par with the top at large teams out there to get a bid, and their getting selected when eligible negates the disadvantage they have to other teams with never being able to sneak into a big bowl with several losses. Of course if you joined a conference none of that would be an issue, hehe. ND will never do that though, not with how pretty their sitting now with NBC and everything else. I still say a playoff system solves all issues.

Except for the 2 times that they were turned down from BCS. Would you like to provide the years that they were eligible for the BCS and got turned down? Since the BCS has been in existence, Notre Dame has been eligible 3 times-2000, 2002, 2005-they've been invited twice Edit: Actually, my mistake on this one. I originally thought they had been invited all 3 times, but then I realized that they had not been invited in 02 with 9 wins-the more I think about it though, I seem to remember that there was no choice-there were no at large bids available that year, as Iowa and Washington State both got in automatically due to their top 6 BCS ranking, even though they were both the second best team in thier conference (Ohio State and USC were above those two). So ND had no chance to be invited that year)-so they were invited both times the bowls had a spot to give them. I knew they wouldn't turn you media darlings down. :P

Nice one Vance! I used to love those doughnuts back when I lived in Nashville, they even rival Krispy Kreme for me.

Except for the 2 times that they were turned down from BCS. Really? I didn't realize that they ever were turned down. Those were a couple of dumb decisions since ND travels probably better than anybody.

Great. We already wasted an early first rounder last year on a punk (Pacman Jones) return man. I was afraid when we took LenDale something like this would happen. Oh well, at least there will be a little action this season as we take our learning curve to a 4-12 season again. At least we've got Vince Young. It'll be fun to watch him around the second half of the year.

I don't see any mention of what they need to do to be eligible however. Perhaps they must finish in the top 8 to get there? I have to be missing something here. Soccer says they are guaranteed a spot if they finish in the top 8. I'm wondering if they can be eligible without being guaranteed a spot or if they must be in the top 8. My guess is that they have to be eligible now along with everyone else if they are ranked in the top 14 in the BCS (up from 12 last year-because the number of teams in the BCS went from 8 to 10). I think it was a compromise with ND-ND used to be eligible with either a 9 win team or a top 12 ranking, and had to be top 6 to be automatically in-now they have to have at least 9 wins and be in the top 14 like everyone else, with a top 8 bid getting them automatically in. I also like that they have given a possible path to minor conferences-any team from a minor conference that finishes in the top 12 will be automatically in-and 13th through 16th if there is a major conference winner that is ranked below that (which there has been just about every year). So it is likely that we will see the best minor conference team in a BCS bowl pretty much every year-which I think their best usually deserves. Come on now, you know that when ND is eligible it's just as good as them automatically getting in. :) No bowl turns ND down. As for the rest, the freakin' NCAA needs to give in and go to a playoff system and the minor conferences will have as good a shot as anybody to win. By the way, GO VOLS!

Um. Ok. :shock: Not sure whether to laugh or be very worried for him. :?

They will either pick up the option or sign him to a new deal. Perfect timing for a resurgent year after back to back bad seasons (actually, average, but bad for a highly paid supposed "ace"). If they do then this idea is moot, but if they don't he'd look great as our 2nd or 3rd starter. He'll be 38 before next season, and has been very mediocre the past two seasons, and has health issues. He would be a very risky signing and will be very expensive. If he's too expensive I wouldn't be interested I just thought there might be a chance to get him for cheaper than Zito or Schmidt if our budget won't allow it or if they have no interest.

They will either pick up the option or sign him to a new deal. Perfect timing for a resurgent year after back to back bad seasons (actually, average, but bad for a highly paid supposed "ace"). If they do then this idea is moot, but if they don't he'd look great as our 2nd or 3rd starter.

Schimdt will end up with the Yankees... You mean Seattle. Count on it. The only saving grace is does he want to pitch in the AL? Well he grew up near Seattle, still has his home there, and has said many times how much he'd love to play for Seattle in his career. Since this is probably his last big contract, I'd say it's now. A lot of people in Seattle are practically pencilling him in. I think the Mariners will comply. So the Cubs now have virtually no chance of signing either Schmidt or Zito? Great. Middle of the road FA starter here we come. Somebody that has yet to be mentioned is Mike Mussina. Granted he's getting a bit old but his numbers this year are solid (3.46 ERA, 1.07 WHIP, 136/30 K/BB ratio). There's a chance that the Yankees won't pick up his option for $17m and I suspect we could then grab him for cheaper than Zito or Schmidt and for fewer years (hopefully just 1 or 2 tops), freeing up an extra spot earlier for the kids.

Not to be argumentative, but 26 is no spring chicken. You expect a little improvement from 26 to 30, but by the time a player is 26, you usually know what you have. PECOTA projects Izturis will have his best year in 2009, when he is 29 years old: .272/.318/.356. And we can't just ignore his injury history. He had several setbacks before rejoining the Dodgers this year (he was expected back in May), and many baseball people thought the Dodgers should be playing him at 2nd to protect his arm. There's no guarantee that he'll be what he was before the injury, which wasn't worth trading for in the first place. There's just not a whole lot to like about this deal. You're not being argumentative at all, I understand the questions about him. Izturis isn't a little kid anymore, true, but he is young enough that he can improve to the point that he's not a hopeless black hole at the bottom of your lineup, and maybe, just maybe, he'll make a large jump like a guy such as Vizquel and become somewhat of an asset. I'm not arguing to ignore the injury history, so far every comment I've made is qualified with "if he stays healthy". I'm more concerned with his health than anything else. Last season when he was healthy early he was hitting great then he got hurt and his season fell apart. Not that I think he'll hit as well all the time as he did early last season but the key is he was showing improvement for about the third season in a row. I'm willing to give him next year and see if he can stay healthy and then if he improves, if not he goes and find someone else.

Defensive metrics are very young and not necessarily reliable. However, ratings for infielders are typically much more accurate because we're dealing with ground balls and line drives that are mostly within a few steps of the defender and pop flies. Outfielder ratings should be taken with a grain of salt because there is no way to measure the line they take to the ball amongst other things. Sammy may have had a better rating than Ichiro because A) he didn't play every day, limiting his chances and B) he could not make plays on the same types of plays that Ichiro could. This makes a lot more sense to me, you analyze the metrics and any weaknesses the metrics have should be complemented by using your eyes and judging.

i think it's even more blind to trust your eyes in a sport that has a 162 game regular season. So you should blindly trust only on a system that has proven unreliable? I'm all for using metrics to judge a player's defense but I feel that it's necessary to use your eyes along with the metrics so that when such a silly mistake comes out from the metric, you can analyze it critically. Also if a reliable metric contradicts what your eyes see, you can do the same.