Transmogrified Tiger

Atlanta and Oakland regional semis/final are on Thursday/Saturday, DC and Minneapolis are on Friday/Sunday. I do not believe times are scheduled yet. According to ESPN, Duke/LSU is at 1 ET on Thursday, with Gonzaga/UCLA at 4 ET. Those are the only times listed.

I have no interest in this UK-UConn game, take me to Bucknell-Memphis plz.

This might be the worst myth I've ever heard. Which good Big 10 team is physical? Illinois? No, they shot more than half their shots in last year's tourney behind the arc, and shot 130 more threes than their opponents this year, and fewer free throws than their opponents. Indiana? No, I don't even remember the last good low-post presence they had. They've been very perimeter-oriented, going back to when they used Tom Coverdale's hot streak and great team 3-point shooting to run to the finals against Maryland. They shot 107 more threes than their opponents but fewer free throws. Iowa? OK, they actually shot fewer threes and had a lot more free throws than their opponents. And this held true in the first round game as well. Ohio State? Maybe, based on a big free throw differential, but they also took 40% of their shots from beyond the arc and launched more than 150 more threes than their opponents. Michigan State? Possibly, b/c they had fewer threes and more free throws than their opponents. But they were ripped all year for being soft, at least around here. Wisconsin? Their numbers are less skewed than in recent years, but I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who watched them play the last few years and consider them a physical team with a big inside presence. When I think of teams that are physical, I think of teams like UNC last year with Sean May, or Maryland with Lonny Baxter and Chris Wilcox, or UConn with Okafor, and Ben Gordon driving a lot, and Josh Boone and Rudy Gay. It's hard to name good big guys in the Big 10, or guys who are good slashers. Instead, you've got a lot of teams that live and die by the perimeter game. When I think of a hard-nosed conference, I probably think of the Big East first. The Big Ten doesn't seem particularly physical to me. And if it makes anyone feel better, Ohio State and Iowa had the free throw edge on their first-round opponents by a large margin. IMO, when you talk about physicality, the first thing that comes to mind is defense. Illinois and Iowa played great man D this year, MSU and Wisconsin are known for it(MSU was not as strong as they typically are, don't know about Wisconsin), plus Indiana and OSU are far from Gonzaga or West Virginia levels of defensive presence. I don't know if it was specifically for the Big 10, but it's a possibility officials were instructed to call a tighter game, or make sure things didn't get out of hand, or however you want to phrase it, and that would definitely hurt the Big11Ten

Northwestern State is clearly a better basketball team than Iowa....

I don't think it's too terrible to use wins in conjunction with other players to show that a player has been consistent, but you don't see that when the topic arises. It's only when trying to discredit pitchers that you see it, and in the cases it's brought up it's basically the only knock against the pitcher. I can't agree that a pitcher deserves credit for "winnability", there's just too many variables outside the pitcher's control that matter a lot for it to be worthwhile.

"Sticking to the facts" is a pretty dense way of looking at it. That's like calling Prior's line drive off the elbow a "May 27 injury" or a "Wrigley Field injury" or a "Cubs home pinstripes" injury. Yeah, all those things are true, but qualifying the injury as such is ultimately inaccurate. It wasn't some special circumstance, like an awkward fall(Lee), or being overworked as a pitcher during the WBC(virtually impossible with the restrictions), and like others have brought up, you don't just throw a bad pitch, or even 50, and suddenly need TJS.

imo = in my opinion jmo = just my opinion

His W-L record isn't really the issue. At all. or any pitcher for that matter. BTW dont dismiss record completely it does factor in, it is the ultimate measure of success. I know it isnt something the pitcher has complete control over, but in the end it doesnt matter if you had 200 plus strikeouts and a great ERA, if you didnt win games you werent a success. Also when you look at the numbers it is a strong indicator of success in wins, if you have the above stats then you most likely will have a good record, but it doesnt guarentee it. A W is all that matters at the end of the day. I may very well be wrong, but thats just how I feel :D Thanks for defending yourself. I've never seen a bad pitcher win games consistantly. It's only one stat, but one that gets dismissed to often by stat boys. I've seen a lot of good pitchers not win games consistently. You'll also notice that when this topic is brought up you never see wins brought up as a point that proves a pitcher's positive value. It's only in instances where pitchers don't have a win total do people question their worth, which makes your "bad pitcher consistently winning games" comment less germane to the discussion.

That's just completely false. Greg Brunner hardly ever complained to officials. Ask any Big Ten fans on this board who actually watched the games for four years, rather than just looking at the stats, seeing a couple games on ESPN and making your assessment off of that. But hey maybe the Big Ten Wonk guy said it once, so it must be true, right? On second thought, how could you make such a claim when it can't be found in any stat sheet? Remember, your eyes can decieve you or you can overreact to one thing you see, so you've got to use the stats. I would be willing to bet that even illiniguy would disagree with you. Wow, that's quite a reaction. Statistics have nothing to do with whether I like Brunner. I really don't like Redick or Williams for Duke, they're both fabulous statistically, I could list more examples of such. If I had said, "I don't like Brunner, he flops and complains a lot, so he's just not very good", then maybe your fanatical anti-statistic rant would be justified. But I said no such thing. And for what it's worth, I saw plenty of Iowa basketball this year, but apparently you think I just pore over box scores and ignore the actual games.

There's a difference when Killingsworth is the only player on the team not floating to the perimeter, and when there are very few settled jump shots on Gonzaga's end, a lot of penetration and attempted penetration. No mention of the Technicals from earlier in the half? Looked like Killingsworth said the magic words.

The officials are doing a great job of bailing out Duke every time GW's pressure bogs them down.

I don't like Brunner. He complained to the officials a lot and flopped more than any player I've seen since Shane Battier.

It seems to be hit big or lose early with MSU hoops. First round losses now to NC State, Nevada, and George Mason, but 4 final fours and an elite 8 run as well.

It was a lot of fun watching that Bradley game with a buddy of mine who's from Peoria. Took the pain away from MSU's abomination earlier in the evening.

It's almost rubbing it in to be soundly beaten by a team that can't shoot a free throw into the ocean.

WHEN THE OTHER TEAM MISSES FREE THROWS, YOU NEED TO GET THE BALL BACK

Not great defense, getting pretty good looks and just missing. I missed the first 12 minutes of the game, and I've still seen 2 games worth of shots go around the rim and out. Shannon Brown left his shot in East Lansing.

This is bad.

Pitt up double digits on Kent State, all 3 other games tied or near tied.

My facebook bracket is going to crap, I think I'll be down 4 or 5 sweet 16 teams after this set of games. Had to pick upsets to get the points though.

To be fair, those were the 3 worst teams from the Big East that are finished.

MSU better win today. Illinois didn't look that good, nor did Indiana or OSU, and Iowa and Wisconsin have lost. I hate the Hawks with a rabid passion, but I really wanted to see the B10 represented well. I believe the Spartans will win quite handily tonight, the Illini have a chance to win big tomorrow, UW doesn't play much defense and they're not as strong on the boards as the Illini. I really like the Hoosiers chances vs. tournament darling Gonzaga, Killingsworth' going destroy whatever the Zags throw at him down low. Batista is a pretty skilled player, I wouldn't sleep on him at all. I agree about the MSU game, GM being without their PG and being a very small team should serve my Spartans well. I think the UW-U of I game is a tossup personally. Home court advantage was the edge that tipped it to UW when I made my picks. I don't get how San Diego is a homecourt advantage for Washington? Seattle=1258 miles from SD Champaign=2032 miles from SD Who do you think has more grads in the area? Who do you think partisan fans will be pulling for?

Don't be dissing the gray. SIU is getting bothered by the WVU defense that normally is not very strong, if they are going to win they need to be able to find more easy buckets.

MSU better win today. Illinois didn't look that good, nor did Indiana or OSU, and Iowa and Wisconsin have lost. I hate the Hawks with a rabid passion, but I really wanted to see the B10 represented well. I believe the Spartans will win quite handily tonight, the Illini have a chance to win big tomorrow, UW doesn't play much defense and they're not as strong on the boards as the Illini. I really like the Hoosiers chances vs. tournament darling Gonzaga, Killingsworth' going destroy whatever the Zags throw at him down low. Batista is a pretty skilled player, I wouldn't sleep on him at all. I agree about the MSU game, GM being without their PG and being a very small team should serve my Spartans well. I think the UW-U of I game is a tossup personally. Home court advantage was the edge that tipped it to UW when I made my picks.

Edited by Tony La Russa I thought La Russa did the foreword. Relief pitching matchups: A labor of paranoia