Transmogrified Tiger

They're enormously dependent on their outside shooting, which has been great so far, and partly a function of them playing a pretty weak schedule. Teams like MSU, IU, and Illinois that have big men to contain Dials won't have to collapse as much on him and give them the threes. They're a step down in the conference IMO, with Wisconsin and maybe UM. IU is similar with their hot outside shooting helping to carry them, but they have more depth on the interior, and more talent overall. FWIW, I think MSU is the best team in the B10 this year, but they probably won't win it because their conference schedule is insane compared to some of the other contenders. i think illinois will win it again, bruce doesn't lose many B10 games. I'm anxious to see how U of I does against teams that have some dynamite players. They've played some teams that are pretty good like UNC, Oregon, and to a lesser extent Georgetown and Xavier. But they haven't faced anyone that has a player or players that are the same caliber of the Davises, the Agers, the Killingsworths, the Dialses of the B10. They may be up to the challenge, they're well coached and have talent, but if I had to bet I'd say that they struggle in those games against the best players in the league. Still doesn't mean they won't win the B10 though, because they're going to handle Wisconsin, Minnesota, UM and the like very well, while those are trap games for other top flight B10 schools.

Huh? i think mckinney said something along those lines last season, after the illini beat them in the braggin' rights game. Ha! I wasn't aware of that. Mckinney sucks. i think every player that's ever played under quiny has underachieved, i can't think of one player who he has coached that's fulfilled their potential, not one. EDIT: okay, so kleiza was good. He got out while there was still time. Please come out of retirement Mr. Majerus.

They're enormously dependent on their outside shooting, which has been great so far, and partly a function of them playing a pretty weak schedule. Teams like MSU, IU, and Illinois that have big men to contain Dials won't have to collapse as much on him and give them the threes. They're a step down in the conference IMO, with Wisconsin and maybe UM. IU is similar with their hot outside shooting helping to carry them, but they have more depth on the interior, and more talent overall. FWIW, I think MSU is the best team in the B10 this year, but they probably won't win it because their conference schedule is insane compared to some of the other contenders.

Prior and Hill for Tejada, Bedard, and Markakis. Bedard, Murton, and Gallagher for Zito. Would you do that? Prior, Hill, Murton, and Gallagher for Tejada, Zito, and Markakis? If I could sign Zito to an extension before making the deal.

Huh? i think mckinney said something along those lines last season, after the illini beat them in the braggin' rights game. At this juncture McKinney is like the 6th best player on the team. I can't wait for Morrison to take his starting spot next year, so that we have a shooting guard who *gasp* makes shots. Michigan State will be ready for U of I. I like their chances, especially since the game is during winter break and the crowd likely won't be as raucous.

I know Bedard was a top prospect, but he now has more MLB IP than minor league, and he'll be 27 on Opening Day. In those MLB innings he's giving up 2 more hits per 9 innings, a full walk more per 9, a big jump in HR, and 3 fewer K's per 9. This would be a mind-numbingly stupid deal.

Welcome to the same plane as powerhouses Sam Houston State and Davidson. I can't wait til next year when we actually have a coach with an offense.

Can we just rewind the offseason back to when we were rumored to be after Bradley and Wilkerson?

Does Missouri still have a team? We're a volleyball school now. And James Augustine has never set a legal screen in his life. Some of the time I don't know how he gets away with it.

In all seriousness, the only chance they have of getting back in the game is if Gardner takes every shot the rest of the game and he goes nuts. They aren't giving up a ton of points, especially against a top 10 team, but a point a minute isn't gonna cut it.

2 hours This really is a no-lose situation from my perspective. Mizzou wins, pandemonium. Mizzou loses by a couple, we kept it close, and U of I looks bad because they can't convincingly beat a team that Sam Houston State knocked off. U of I blows them out, that's what should happen, Mizzou is a mid-major.

I think the Outbox is where outgoing messages go once they are sent, and can still be edited. Once the other person opens the PM, it goes to the Sentbox. I think.

When you factor in that he's only expected to be an end-of-the-rotation guy and when you consider how little he's going to make, I'm going to call it high reward. From a purely performance-based standpoint... yeah.. medium-reward. But other things considered, it has a big payoff. Was Grudz a high reward or medium reward? We paid him $1 million. He didn't overwhelm anyone offensively. In fact, he was average in that department. I consider him high reward, though, because he was a big benefit to this team and it was a risk-less investment to make. But if Reyes is going to be in the rotation, he doesn't have a spot.

Are you talking about a Jones/Pie platoon? I have a real hard time seeing Dusty doing something like that, and I'm not sure it'd be the greatest thing for Pie to be facing almost strictly LHP in his first big league stint. Of course, this goes without saying that I prefer Pie not sniff the Majors till the AAA season is over.

He knew that Jones was coming up and said 'why bother'? Seriously, just take your lead, watch him K, then toss your helmet to Sarge and wait for Neifi to scurry out with your hat and glove.

I also have a hard time seeing Ensberg and especially Pettitte repeating last year's success.

It may be lower than last season, but not because it was "lowered", if that makes any sense. I think Hendry had the same payroll to work with, and as of now he isn't going to use all of it, although there won't be a huge drop from last year to this year.

I could've sworn I already made this post, not enough sleep I guess. To me, it was pretty clear that Giles wanted to stay in SD, and some could go as far to say that Giles' perceived interest in other teams was just to drive SD's offer up. However, given the dearth of RF opportunities available to Hendry, and given how good a RF Giles is, I'm pretty unhappy with his lack of any interest at all.

do they have one big enough? They have one that will make him feel like royalty.

Absolutely incorrect. The number of strikeouts you have has absolutely no direct bearing on whether, if you put a ball in play, that ball goes for a hit. How could it? Strikeouts and balls in play are mutually exclusive. I can see the fuzzy math that is leading you to make the above incorrect statement. You're thinking of a hypothetical Player A, that in 5X at-bats (X being a very large number, such that sample size isn't an issue) doesn't hit a home run or a sacrifice fly (for the sake of keeping things simple, including them would make no difference), strikes out 2X times, makes 2X ball in play outs and amasses X hits. A .333 BABIP. Now you're thinking of a hypothetical Player B, that in 5X at-bats doesn't hit a home run or a sac fly, strikes out X times, makes 3X ball in play outs and amasses X hits. A .250 BABIP. Therefore, you're arguing, strikeouts lead to higher BABIP. Rubbish. The entire difference in BABIP is based on the completely unfounded assumption that every single extra ball in play that Player B manages instead of a Player A strikeout results in that ball in play being converted into an out. The reason that the BABIP changes is because you're changing it, you're simply making it the case that Player B hits .000 on the X extra balls in play! Obviously that's going to supress a guy's BABIP, if on X balls in play you just automatically award him with a 6-3 groundout! The drop in BABIP is entirely caused by that, and has nothing to do with the strikeouts. Player B only exists as a hypothetical, because no player is ever going to go X balls in play (where X is a very large number) and not get a single hit. What happens if you don't accidentally fiddle the numbers in your head is you end up with a player C, that in 5X at-bats doesn't hit a home run or a sac fly, strikes out X times, makes 8X/3 ball in play outs and amasses 4X/3 hits. A .333 BABIP still, only a higher average (.267 as opposed to Player A's .200). That's why it's fair to say that strikeouts suppress batting average. But they have absolutely nothing to do directly with BABIP. That said, as I mentioned before, on the whole strikeouts do have a slight indirect effect upon BABIP, in that players that strike out more, on the whole, have slightly higher BABIPs. That's simply because major league players that strike out tend to have power (because players that strike out a lot and don't have any power, unless they walk a ridiculous amount, aren't major leaguers), and power hitters tend to swing harder and thus hit the ball harder and further, meaning it is generally fielded less successfully. But striking out more isn't leading to a higher BABIP, just as striking out more isn't leading to power. It's just that they're all affected by the same thing: players "swinging for the fences" (sadly that phrase comes with a lot of negative connotations, but none are here intended). You guys are right, my apologies. I was recalling some faulty info or recalling good info badly. Thanks for the great explanation as always Diffusion.

it seems like people who subscribe to the conventional wisdom of baseball often see the new guys as smug. if anything, it's the unwillingness to change or see something as an improvement that maddens me. who cares if they're smug if they're right? does it matter? is it reasonable to go on believing myths because the guys who've busted those myths are sort of jerks? Did you read the description of the book at amazon? I'm all for new thinking, and the editorial review is probably supposed to be exaggerated a little, but it's almost over the top. I remember being turned off to the book reading that the other day when the thread first came up.

First of all, K's are way down the list on why Jones is terrible. K's are not evil. Most times they are no different than any other out, and they chiefly harm you on the whole by hampering your BABIP(a stat I did not make up). No, you didn't make up BABIP, but you did make up the bit about K's harming BABIP. They don't. There is no direct relationship between K's and BABIP, by BABIP's very definition (the formula specifically throws out all ABs in which the player K's). There is an indirect relationship, in that strikeouts correlate with power and power correlates with a slightly higher BABIP. But that assists BABIP, it doesn't hamper it. K's are bad, but it's not that simple. If the search button was working I'd repost the few paragraphs that I've honed to explain everything. As it is, right now, I don't have the time to rewrite it. The fact that K's are not included in BABIP is the relationship. The more K's you have, the fewer outs come from balls in play, the higher your BABIP is, making it harder to sustain. I probably should've added sustainability to "harming BABIP".

Lest we forget, you were the one who brought up that topic with this post. The back slappin started long before that post. I don't see any.

Lest we forget, you were the one who brought up that topic with this post.

Can he play RF?