Magnetic Curses

mcfadden has the stride of earl campbell. i really like my guy shard above all others, though.

imagine how awesome their front court will be if oden comes back full strength.

how can anyone say that they don't want the kobe trade to happen? the bulls are a good team, they are just a good team. they are a playoff caliber team that could make the finals and then lose badly to whoever they play there. they are the same team as last year and they aren't getting much better.

hinrich's going to have to be included if wallace isn't. those other guys simply don't make enough money.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nba/news/story?id=3082513 Until the Lakers back off their demands some, this won't happen. they ain't going to get all of that. and either nocioni or wallace would have to be included, possibly hinrich. those guys don't make enough money.

i think the illini are still in the upper echelon of the Big Ten. weber's a good enough coach to take a bunch of defensive minded players into the tourney. but dmac, semrau, and tisdale better be able to fill it up, because we can't score.

why dont you just call it moneyball? intentionally foul pitches off until he breaks. which is basically one of the reasons in moneyball. middle relievers are middle relievers because (i think this is the quote): "Theyre too [explicit] to be [explicit] starters. " Drive up the starters pitch count to either break em or get them out of the game right on, it's been a while since i read it.

That is some hard hitting analysis right there. oh jeez, here comes pitchee mcgee. enlighten us please, pitchee.

why dont you just call it moneyball? intentionally foul pitches off until he breaks.

they want wallace? holy crap, this deal needs to be done on that fact alone!

what beane says and what he does are two completely different things. the whole point of moneyball IS in fact, exploiting market trends. however, beane exploited conventional wisdom and it's adherents for undervaluing a crucial part of the game. speed has little importance when compared with obp, and it's hard to exploit something that is nothing if not overvalued (it can't be undervalued, it simply can't). i would venture a guess that there will never be another "moneyball"-type situation where such a vitally important statistic such as obp is so undervalued.

just tell your hitters to choke up with 2 strikes and try foul off as many pitches as they can. once you've eclipsed the 10 pitch mark, swing away. this is the same strategy that ruined our young pitchers. why isn't it employed on pitchers that arent't cubs?

Colorado ranks 2nd in OPS and 8th in ERA in the NL... going to World Series. San Diego ranks 1st in ERA and 14th in OPS...didn't make the playoffs. I won't disagree that pitching and D are important, but you win by scoring more than your opponent. You need a good offense to do that. And of all the names you listed there, the only good( or better) hitters are Lee, ARam, Sori and DeRosa. Soto may be, but I still want to see him behind the plate for a full season before I make a call. Jones is bad and Theriot and Blanco are nearly craptacular. Throw Murton in there and that's one more good hitter. I'd prefer 5 good( or slightly better) and 3 mashers. That's a good offense, and if done properly, not overly costly. at the begiining of the 2006 season, i did some quick research on pitching and it's relation to making the playoffs. teams in the top 4 in their respective leagues in era were 33% more likely to have made the playoffs than teams in the top 4 in ops. once the playoffs hit, it's anybody's guess what will happen, but as far as the regular season, or the true test of excellence, goes, pitching is king--that is to say, starting pitching.

where is the proof and why isn't everyone convinced? pitching i'd agree with. i'd consider pitching 33% more valuable than hitting, just based on some simple statistical research that i've done. however, good pitching makes defense's look good. a pitcher who can consistently strike hitters out or induce ground balls also decreases error amounts. And vice versa. This is probably what I find most annoying about "pitching and defense wins championships" They're connected. They're the same thing. You can't have pitching without defense, you can't have defense without pitching. A horrible defense can make even the highest K pitchers look bad. defense is not the same as pitching. bad pitchers do not become good because of good defense. if you give up a lot of line drives, no defense will make you look good. however, good pitchers can cover up a bad defense.

where is the proof and why isn't everyone convinced? pitching i'd agree with. i'd consider pitching 33% more valuable than hitting, just based on some simple statistical research that i've done. however, good pitching makes defenses look good. a pitcher who can consistently strike hitters out or induce ground balls also decreases error amounts. defense can definitely save you a few games here and there over the course of 162 games, but it's more important to have starting pitching, that is, pitchers who strike hitters out or consistently have high g/f ratios--or hitter who get on base and drive the ball.

trade marshall while he still has perceived value.

But that doesnt change the fact that Dusty has never had a player quite like Dunn. I understand he has favored guys like Simon. Still what would he do if he had a Dunn type on his team has never really been shown before. I think the worse thing that will happen is Dusty will bat him 6th or something like that. The one I think that is really going to be interesting is Scott Hattieberg (Base Clogging Vet) and Joey Votto (base clogging rookie) Don't worry; they have the free-swinging nonclogger Jorge Cantu to solve that little problem. Reds fans will tear their hair out as Votto rots on the bench. I forgot about him. This I think there is proof of how Dusty will handle the situation. man, that's going to be so bad. dusty will never play votto. "that cantu really knows how to play."

Isn't the "relatively speaking" = the "less resources"? not really, the "relatively speaking" would more equal "less time at his job". Well then, the comparison is flawed if it just means that. Schuerholz has been there 17 years. In those years, his teams have won 14 division titles and 1 WS. They appeared in 4 other WS's and lost in the NLCS 4 other times. His teams won 100 games 6 times, and over 90 games 7 other times. In those 17 years, his teams had a total of 1 losing season, a 79-83 mark in 2006. Beane just finished his 10th season as the Oakland G.M. In that time, the A's have won the division 4 times and the WC once. They have won 100 games twice, and over 90 4 other times. They have had two losing seasons: 1998 (74-88) and 2007 (76-88). They went to the ALCS once, never making the WS. You cannot compare the two without considering factors like lack of resources that would help Beane. Scheurholz's teams have made the playoffs 82.4% of the time compared to Beane's 50%. Schuerholz's teams have had losing seasons 5.9% of the time compared to Beane's 20%. They aren't even close even before you consider success in the playoffs which Schuerholz's teams have been a lot better at. if anything, schuerholz's lack of success in the playoffs is a testament to the crapshoot that the playoffs are. it's impossible to separate playoff success from payroll. beane builds teams that are built for the regular season, he knows his limits. there are only about 2 teams with the resources to build teams for the playoffs, anyway, and even those teams aren't always successful. last time i checked, schuerholz is still the poster boy for playoff futility. it's still not a very broad chasm. and if we did factor in the payroll situation, there's really no comparison.

anyone anytime. too bad that time wasn't in the last week, eh, dbacks? i wish i still lived in denver right now, they must be going nuts.

if iowa played that well against their last 100 big ten opponents, they might have won one of those games.

Isn't the "relatively speaking" = the "less resources"? not really, the "relatively speaking" would more equal "less time at his job".

I-N-I we better win today.

yeah, he's good. beane's been just as successful relatively speaking with less resources. so................there you go.

I dont think they can get the Illini doubting themselves after the last 2 weeks. The key for Iowa,and any team facing the Illini, is can they stop the run? If they can stop the run, then they force Juice into throwing which isnt pretty. But stopping the Illini's run game is alot easier said than done. Mendenhall is a stud, Juice is a stud when running, and their offensive line is terrific. I expect the 1st half to be close, and then the Illini to come out in the 2nd half and put it to the Hawkeyes. But making them sore and thinking about getting hit might do the trick. Doubt themselves wasn't the word I was looking for, apprehensive or tentative. wisconsin came into yesterday's game knowing exactly what the illini would try to do, and they could do nothing about it. the illini don't rely on tricks or trick plays, they don't rely on long passes that hit infrequently, they don't even rely on a great defense. they rely on shoving the ball down the throat of the defense, and, in wiconsin's case, attacking it's strength. the illini have probably been made to feel sore enough, but what they thrive on is eating the opposing d-line's dinner. iowa's going to have to play strong at the point of attack throughout the game. and generally, team's start to wear down in the final quarter or two against a road-grading offensive line. This over confidence is what I'm counting on. YOU are counting on? why the hate? Hate....no. I just think they will have a tough game on Saturday and when you made that post I thought "that's what I was looking to say". how is it overconfidence by stating the facts? as has been pointed out, i never said the illini would beat iowa, just what iowa would have to do to beat the illini. a lot of teams have beaten syracuse this year, go root against THEM. :P

I dont think they can get the Illini doubting themselves after the last 2 weeks. The key for Iowa,and any team facing the Illini, is can they stop the run? If they can stop the run, then they force Juice into throwing which isnt pretty. But stopping the Illini's run game is alot easier said than done. Mendenhall is a stud, Juice is a stud when running, and their offensive line is terrific. I expect the 1st half to be close, and then the Illini to come out in the 2nd half and put it to the Hawkeyes. But making them sore and thinking about getting hit might do the trick. Doubt themselves wasn't the word I was looking for, apprehensive or tentative. wisconsin came into yesterday's game knowing exactly what the illini would try to do, and they could do nothing about it. the illini don't rely on tricks or trick plays, they don't rely on long passes that hit infrequently, they don't even rely on a great defense. they rely on shoving the ball down the throat of the defense, and, in wiconsin's case, attacking it's strength. the illini have probably been made to feel sore enough, but what they thrive on is eating the opposing d-line's dinner. iowa's going to have to play strong at the point of attack throughout the game. and generally, team's start to wear down in the final quarter or two against a road-grading offensive line. This over confidence is what I'm counting on. YOU are counting on? why the hate?