Magnetic Curses

Nope. That to me might be the most egregious sin of that night. He just sat on his fat butt with that stupid toothpick in his mouth while the ship was sinking. i have absolutely no problem with dusty remaining calm. what would people have him do? stomp around and rant and rave? have a hippie freak out? go out and yell at the ump and ruin any kind of serenity that the players had to begin with? the manager was virtually powerless in that situation. he pulls prior then he gets second guessed when farnsworth comes in and is ineffective, which he was. the players blew it. the fielding percentage leader at ss muffed an easy double play and the whole world came down, period. the problem i have with dusty is leaving prior in so long during his previous start. the end of that game was all gonzalez.

in other news, agone said that he wouldn't have turned two on the speedy miguel cabrera.

yeah, i don't think this owner is going to get any sympathy. he's profiting from someone else's product.

tom crean just held a press conference and stated that he has no interest in holding a press conference.

and he'd probably refuse to hang out with elitists as well....I mean, mind saying why he's a 'meat head and idiot'? Because he is both a meat head, and an idiot. as are most former players. at least he didn't end up like daulton, thinking lizard men are coming to take him away. I think it would be much more entertaining to hang out with crazy though. true. although do not deny the existence of lizard men in front of him, he may think you are one, yourself.

Is the regular WGN broadcast not in HD? If not, WGN would still be the easy choice for me. if it's sprinkling, hi def might not be a good option.

and he'd probably refuse to hang out with elitists as well....I mean, mind saying why he's a 'meat head and idiot'? Because he is both a meat head, and an idiot. as are most former players. at least he didn't end up like daulton, thinking lizard men are coming to take him away.

let's try to think positive.

for the record, i only like kruk because he predicted the cubs to be in the ws, although since hew said it, i am now worried about it.

no, i don't like his analysis, and if he abandons the cubs, he's back where he started. but he's off to a good start this year.

it looks like they'll get it in.

really. i think he's an okay dude ever since he predicted the cubs to win the series. anyone else like him now?

johnson is like the perfect hendry player.

he reminds me of devin harris, who's a pretty good player in his own right. not great, but pretty good. he'll be good in the nba, but right now, he could be a lottery pick.

curry really broke down at the end, there. forced 3 air balls in a row and then didn't have the energy to take collins off the dribble in the waning moments. if i were him, i'd get to the nba as fast as i can.

we aren't talking about you, though. we're talking about people who play baseball for a living.

"How can you look at those numbers and say he's not more or likely to suck in clutch stats than a guy like Franceour?" Um... because I know about probability distribution? If you dig around long enough, you will find players with split stats that would seem to indicate that there's some sort of effect going on - clutch, unclutch, or any set of things you can look at with splits. But given the size of the population you're looking at, you would expect there to be some unlikely/unexplainable outcomes in the data set. One player's splits don't prove anything, not even about that player. It's not enough to know whether or not your sample is significant, but whether or not your measurement is significant. When you look at major league players as a population, "clutch" tendencies don't seem to persist from season to season, the way that, say, platoon tendencies do. haha, dextermorgan just got struck down out of nowhere, by a power greater than we could know. oh, the humanity. "did you want to talk about the weather or were you just making chit-chat?" No, not really. I understand what probability distribution is, but I don't buy the fact that Casey Blake sucking year after year after year after year after year in those situations is due to the fact that it had to eventually happen to somebody and he's just the unlucky one. Poor Casey Blake, he can't be blamed for him being a choke artist, he's just unlucky! Every year! Yeah, that's [deleted]. I really don't understand why people can't accept the fact that the mental aspect of the game sometime results in players reacting differently in important situations. Why is that so hard to believe? They aren"t robots, they're humans. Some people can handle the pressure, some people press and try to do too much. That's not probability distribution. address your post to him, he was the one that pantsed you.

it's hard to convince someone to coach your team with sanctions likely forthcoming, even at a school like iu.

bennett told iu no. http://www.spokesmanreview.com/blogs/sportslink/

We play man to man almost exclusively. We've probably zoned a total of 10 game minutes all season. I about crapped myself when I saw that box and one. self often played a 1-3-1 at illinois. i thought that was what they were in for a while.

Yeah. I mean, think about it. Are "clutch" players inherently lazy then? Because they don't step up the rest of their game until it's "close and late"? Why only perform when the game is close? Why not be that good all the time? manny is good all the time, though.

yes, there are other forms of analysis, but those forms are rather trivial when compared with statistical analysis. there are so many games and so much data that it would be stupid to put anything before numbers. in other words, you can analyze however you want, but if you aren't basing most if not all of your decisions on large deposits of numbers, you are going to fail.

"How can you look at those numbers and say he's not more or likely to suck in clutch stats than a guy like Franceour?" Um... because I know about probability distribution? If you dig around long enough, you will find players with split stats that would seem to indicate that there's some sort of effect going on - clutch, unclutch, or any set of things you can look at with splits. But given the size of the population you're looking at, you would expect there to be some unlikely/unexplainable outcomes in the data set. One player's splits don't prove anything, not even about that player. It's not enough to know whether or not your sample is significant, but whether or not your measurement is significant. When you look at major league players as a population, "clutch" tendencies don't seem to persist from season to season, the way that, say, platoon tendencies do. haha, dextermorgan just got struck down out of nowhere, by a power greater than we could know. oh, the humanity. "did you want to talk about the weather or were you just making chit-chat?"

i have this theory that calipari showed little interest in the kentucky job because of derrick rose. after rose is gone, imo, calipari may be coaching the bulls.

not this crap again. don't people who hate reason have something better to do with their time than to argue the existence of unicorns or leprechauns or ghosts or whatever? clutchiness, as imb said, is a pointless stat to value anyway. it's just an excuse to grind an axe with smart people for acting all smug or something.