XZero771679666304

Park factors are useful and not just at the extremes, and FP% is not a good way to judge defense. I'm not really going overboard here, or anything "way"*4. Anyway, I know he knows what he's talking about. We've had this conversation before. I'd like to see some numbers and I'm curious about SLGBIP in general. We do know the Brewers defense was really bad, and the DIPS numbers are meaningful. Yeah, FPCT is a terrible way to judge defense. The Brewers had terrible range on the infield, while the Cubs (outside of Theriot) did not. The Cubs four infielders (including Theriot) pretty much killed their Brewer counterparts in ZR, and I would assume UZR as well. Taking Braun off the infield won't give the Brewers even an average IF defense, though it will be an improvement.

Check the post above yours. Flyball pitchers give up less hits than groundball pitchers. Yeah, it was late and I was pretty much talking out my ass. The sad thing is that I knew what I was saying was wrong. I guess I was just trying to be argumentative.

Maybe I am the only one, but I am a Bears fan who doesn't hate the Packers. I don't like them, but that burning hatred just isn't there. Now the Cowboys, there's a team that I hate. I probably dislike the Vikings more than the Pack as well. The Colts, too. Heck, there may be 10 teams I like less than the Pack.

to be fair, he was found not guilty. Don't let that silly little fact get in the way of rationality. Noticed I said Chmura was charged--not found guilty. So don't let that "silly little fact" get in the way. Even though he admitted to drinking with a bunch of teenage girls (including his own child's babysitter, who accused him of raping her) in a hot tub. Those must be silly little facts, too. I think you'll find this blog on the rationality of packer fans an interesting read: Link Sweet, so just because some Packers fans support Chmura, that means all of them support him. I love assumptions. You're missing the point here. They are the enemy, and enemies are always the same, regardless of who they are, just as long as they are the enemy.

Except that Marquis' numbers (both last year and career) are comparable to or better than Capuano, Suppan and Bush's. Dempster you may have a point with, but it remains to be seen whether he makes to the rotation. And as for the defensive factor, both Lilly and Hill are fly ball pitchers, who probably didn't benefit much from the Cubs defense, which wasn't really much better (outside of Soriano's arm) than the Brewers' in the outfield. Also working in the Cubs favor is that the miss a lot more bats than the Brewers' pitchers (aside from Sheets and Gallardo). And since none of them are Brandon Webb out there, they will probably give up more hits. Like I said, if the Brewers' staff was loaded with guys with a 2/1 gb/fb ratio guys, I could buy that moving Braun off the infield might dramatically improve the numbers, but that isn't the case. It sure isn't going to magically shave half a run off of everybody's ERA. Cameron will help, but shifting Braun to the OF will probably diminish it a bit. The Cubs defense should be quite a bit better in 2008, Replacing Jones and Floyd/DeRo/Murton with Pie and Fukudome, two great defenders. The OF will have 3 plus arms. The defense on the IF could be better if Cedeno shows up, and the defense at catcher will be MUCH better. And being that even the worst case 4/5 starters (Marquis/Dempster) are decided gb pitchers, that will all help. The top 3 are all SO pitchers or both SO and gb (Z). It's pretty far from a scientific analysis (though I don't put much faith in defensive metrics), but I feel pretty comfortable in predicting the Cubs' pitching will be markedly better than the Brewers' again on 2008.

The Brewers had the 3rd best FIP in the NL last year so it was really the fact they had the 3rd worst defense in the NL that held their pitching down. When you add in the fact they are in a hitters park vs an extreme pitchers park they had the 2nd or 3rd best pitching in the NL and they should be better this year. That's really spinning it. They should be better, especially if Hall goes back to third and Braun goes to left. But there's no way the Brewers have the 2nd or 3rd best staff in the NL. It's not like you guys had a bunch of 2/1 gb/fb pitchers who were simply brutalized by the defense. Aside from Sheets (when he actually takes the mound) and Gallardo, the Milwaukee rotation is really pretty mediocre. You've got a Injury-prone ace, a young #2, and three #5's. Maybe a decent #3 if Cappy bounces back, but that is far from a sure thing. And the pen is a question mark.

I think they'd demand Rich Hill as well as every other valuable player we have with little service time. I just can't see it happening.

And it was so obvious. I remember that game, and thinking WTF is Dusty doing when he brought Fox in. And as the pitches piled up, I was just waiting for it to happen. It's almost funny how clueless Baker is.

Yeah, I wouldn't take that bet. Illinois is the only Big Ten team to beat Wisconsin at the Kohl Center since Bo Ryan took over. Most likely it will be a slower paced game and with how the Badgers have shot free throws this year I would imagine this game might end up being closer than you think. Don't underestimate how badly the Illini suck this year.

I honestly think that you underestimate the Bush/Republican backlash out there right now. I think that's what is getting young voters and other folks that don't typically vote out to the polls. I genuinely believe that the Democratic Primary is the real race this year. I don't think a Republican can win the general election. Maybe I'm being naive or hopeful, but it's the feeling I get. Yeah, I may be. Call it tempered optimism after I thought the same thing in 2004.

I'd be more concerned about the Clinton's bringing him down than the Republicans. If Obama can survive the nomination process he can probably take anything the GOP can come up with. It's not like they can accuse him of "not being black enough" and his lack of experience in the senate is probably an advantage for reasons mentioned earlier. The real worry for Obama is the Clintons and what they can dig up on him and the lengths they they will go to discredit, humiliate or blackmail him. If the Clintons don't, you can bet your ass the Republicans will, and probably worse. And besides, it's not as if Barack has been totally congenial in his tactics. Actually, Hillary's tact has been far more civil up to this point, though that may have to change in light of recent events. But that's politics. I don't think that anything will have to be dug up on Obama. He has gotten by largely on his considerable charisma and his platform, but as we wind down the road, people will start to question his lack of experience. Personally, I don't think it's that much of an issue, but I am not so naive as to think most others feel the same way. My concern is that Obama will damage Hillary enough to win the nomination, leaving Obama as a lame duck candidate because of his lack of experience, and letting some joker like Huckabee or Giuliani into the White House. I was looking forward to Obama in 2012 because I just don't think he can win this. I believe Obama and Clinton are better than any of the Republican probables, but that Hillary is the one who has a real chance in the general election. If you don't mind me saying, you seem to have an unnatural amount of vitriol for the Clintons. I don't know why, and that's your prerogative. But I think it's wrong to dismiss the power that the Clinton name will hold for most voters when they step into the polls in November 2008. They (mostly he) is still enormously popular in nearly all demographics, excluding the far right and possibly the rich. The numbers I have seen (albeit not recently) indicate that if Bill could run again, he's likely win in a landslide. It's not Bill running, but Hillary is no idiot herself, and a lot of people want to see Bill associated with the White House again.

I didn't say that wasn't going to happen. The highest NL rookie EqA will belong to Rasmus, or Maybin. or Upton. or .... but Rasmus will have tops, that's my guess. I'm pretty sure he meant higher in the ROY voting.

It's freakout time. I think I just had a heart attack. This can't be happening. I rather doubt it is. I think it's just talk.

I can't say I agree with any of this though I really don't want this to turn into another political war so I'll respond this way: (for the bolded part) 9/11 changed everything. If people associate the Clinton's with the "good old days" then they are in for a very very big disappointment. They can't magic away terrorism. Bin Laden etal. are not going to turn themselves in and start loving America just because we have a new president. We have problems now that didn't exist back then. Clinton's track record for dealing with terrorists was less than spectacular. I won't argue the culpability of Bush regarding our foreign policy. But i disagree that his shortcomings automatically translate to every other Republican. Finally, I don't want Bill Clinton to be co President and it has nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky. I am definitely better off now than I was during the Clinton administration. Statements like the worse Dem is better than the best Rep. -or vice versa- are narrow minded and foolish. McCain for instance is much better than Kucinet (sp?), Obama is definitely better than Romney and Huckabee. You may be, but you're in the minority. The country as a whole is in worse shape that it was 10 years ago, and there is no valid argument to the contrary. Our national reputation is in the toilet, the dollar is in trouble, our troops are dying for essentially nothing, etc. And as far as terrorism goes, Bush has only made it worse. It's not macho, but the only real way to win "the war on terror" is to stop giving these psychos an excuse. Sure, there will always be those who don't need one, but that doesn't make it a good idea to throw fuel on the fire. I think a lot of people are under the impression that we are safer today than we were on 9/11, but that is a falsity. There are far more terrorists today than there were then, and that has everything to do with what this administration has done. Every second we are in Iraq is a boon to recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations. And every stupid and arrogant thing Bush does makes nations on the fence more sympathetic to their twisted cause. And the worst dem is better than the best rep is silly, and I wasn't advocating it. But I see little from any of the Republican probables that lead me to believe they would change a whole lot. They have to pander to the same demographic that Bush and Co. do. If the current situation were less dire, I wouldn't be taking so extreme a position. But because the current administration has been such an apocalyptic disaster, I think the country needs something as close to a 180 degree turn in policy as is possible. John McCain may be the only Republican I would even consider voting for, and he is a lesser choice than Clinton or Obama.

How many of these will there be?: "How did we get to 100 pages about a Brian Roberts trade that hasn't happened yet?" 90 pages on the potential of a Brian Roberts trade that may or may not happen, compared to the 9 pages of the NBA for the entire season. Man the NBA sucks. Yes, yes it does.

How many of these will there be?: "How did we get to 100 pages about a Brian Roberts trade that hasn't happened yet?" Nah, the answer is pretty obvious: This has been the slowest offseason ever. We have nothing else to talk about.

I know you say this in jest (sort of), and 6 years ago I would have just laughed. But we must have a philosophical change in our government soon or we're all in deep doo-doo.

His presence could also very easily undermine her presidency. I have a hard time believing that Bill Clinton is going to sit in the backround and stay out of his wife's way. Regardless, there will always be questions about how much influence he has over policy decisions. Again, I don't think this would be a bad thing. If Bill Clinton ran again right now, he'd win easily. Aside from far-right nut jobs who consider tomcatting around to be a worse offense than flushing your country down the toilet, most still respect him for the job he did running the nation. No sane person can honestly say they prefer things now to the way they were 10 years ago. Will Hillary's election turn back the clock? Probably not, but people will associate Bill and Hillary with better times, and for good reason (remember when the biggest worry the country had was Bill's sex life?). And as petty as that sounds, it will make a difference. People are fickle, and are swayed by their feelings and perceptions more often than not. I also think he would be a great diplomatic asset. Having maybe the most internationally liked and respected U.S. ex-president as the first husband has to be a net benefit.

I don't think Bill has to pull any strings to be a real presence, especially with regard to foreign relations. He is still very well respected globally, and a Clinton White House may be the best chance we have of rebuilding some of the reputation the current administration has destroyed. Again, I really like Obama, but I fear the Republicans can successfully bring him down on the basis of his lack of experience. This will be the decisive issue with him. Plus there are other factors that many will unfortunately consider that may keep them from voting for him when November 2008 rolls around. I just believe that Clinton has a better shot in the final vote. I also fear that Obama attacking Hillary may be really counterproductive to the DNC cause. Prior to the last month or so, I was thinking about how strong Obama would be in 2012. I am scared that the groundswell of support for him will fade down the stretch, leaving the DNC without a really strong candidate and vulnerable to even the pitiable array of Republican candidates. I just want the Dems to take the White House, regardless.

None of the Republican probables are at all acceptable to me. I like Obama more, but in the end I think Hillary is far more electable, due in no small part to her husband, whose presence would be a real boon to her presidency. I can't really see any situation where I wouldn't vote Democrat. The Republican candidates are all jokes.

man if we are ever gonna beat michigan, this is the year. psu should actually be better than michigan overall. Michigan will have a bunch of talent, but they're going to be awfully young. You're still Penn State though, so I'm not too worried about winning that game. Yeah, PSU is no Appalachian State.

Roberts as a lead off hitter in 2007: .288 .376 .424, 710 plate appearances, 101 runs scored Soriano as a lead off hitter in 2007: .308 .345 .579, 577 plate appearances, 92 runs scored. CLEARLY not a lead off hitter? I beg to differ. If Soriano had 710 plate appearances last year, he would have scored more runs than Roberts scored last year by quite a bit. And isn't that really what you want your lead off hitter to do? Even if the Cubs get Roberts, I have no issues with Pineilla batting Soriano and Roberts 1/2 in the order. And if the Cubs could get some better bats hitting 7th and 8th in the order, I think Soriano challenges the 100 RBI mark in 2008. To be fair, Soriano had much better hitters following him than Roberts did. To be fair, Soriano drove himself in (HR) quite a few more times than Roberts did. We can go back and forth on this, but if Soriano can put up a .345 OBP or better, I have no issues with him leading off. And as Raw pointed out in his recent response, if the alternative to hit 2nd behind Roberts is Theriot, I'll take Soriano/Roberts 1/2 all day long. But is Soriano going to put up a .345 OBP? Probably not. And would all those homers be more beneficial to the team lower in the order? Almost certainly. I think even putting Soriano in the 2 hole behind Roberts would be at least a marginal improvement.

Yeah, it's just a shame the Cowboys will be playing there and not a likable team. :P

Roberts as a lead off hitter in 2007: .288 .376 .424, 710 plate appearances, 101 runs scored Soriano as a lead off hitter in 2007: .308 .345 .579, 577 plate appearances, 92 runs scored. CLEARLY not a lead off hitter? I beg to differ. If Soriano had 710 plate appearances last year, he would have scored more runs than Roberts scored last year by quite a bit. And isn't that really what you want your lead off hitter to do? Even if the Cubs get Roberts, I have no issues with Pineilla batting Soriano and Roberts 1/2 in the order. And if the Cubs could get some better bats hitting 7th and 8th in the order, I think Soriano challenges the 100 RBI mark in 2008. To be fair, Soriano had much better hitters following him than Roberts did.

Yeah, the notion that the Sox won 2005 due to "smallball" is not only a myth, but almost the polar opposite of what actually was the case.