Magnetic Curses

Well you bring in a subpar recruiting class for the 4th year in a row that's how. Oh and don't worry 5 is looking like crap as well. the only thing i can think of is to fire weber and hire gillespie. Not gonna happen. Gillespe isn't coming back after the way Guenther treated Self, what with locking him out of his office and what not. I am afraid we are stuck with this dork. i wouldn't rule it out. gillespie has to understand the situation. That may be but the damage is done. We are in trouble until at least 2010 with recruiting. This whole we don't need you crap has really worked wonders for us. The guy came off a national championship game and ended up with Chester Frazier, Jamar Smith, and Charles Jackson. Or in other words a nice class for a small conference school. i'm starting to hear great things about tisdale, and am actually getting excited about the kid. cole notsomuch, but we'll see.

I like Texas. But, KU is very good. It kills me too cause there two best (arguably) players and coach could have been ours. 3. rush wright collins it absolutely breaks my heart to watch them play.

Well you bring in a subpar recruiting class for the 4th year in a row that's how. Oh and don't worry 5 is looking like crap as well. the only thing i can think of is to fire weber and hire gillespie. Not gonna happen. Gillespe isn't coming back after the way Guenther treated Self, what with locking him out of his office and what not. I am afraid we are stuck with this dork. i wouldn't rule it out. gillespie has to understand the situation.

KU is my early favorite for the NC.

Well you bring in a subpar recruiting class for the 4th year in a row that's how. Oh and don't worry 5 is looking like crap as well. the only thing i can think of is to fire weber and hire gillespie. if we lose richmond then we lose richmond.

how does illinois climb back from the calamity that has befallen them this year?

i don't understand where a guy like murton buys his pants.

i don't want to watch another of our former linebackers win multiple superbowls with the pats. get him signed.

You call him bitter??? Maybe you should check out your own attitude. Wishing something like that on someone is downright inhumane. i'm only bitter in the sense that i wish him specific harm.

"hiring prostitutes is not a disease! if you knowingly choose to go to a prostitue, i don't know how that can be a disease." what a happy turn of events for a bitter, humorless, and otherwised un-loveable curmudgeon. i hope he has syphillis.

I agree, but I think it works a little differently. What they fail to do is recognize the damage of the caught stealing. So instead of overvaluing the SB, they undervalue the CS. You never hear about SB%, what you hear is "This guy can steal you 40-50 bases". It's similar to how they talk about pitchers. A 15-16 pitcher means you are "a 15 game winner", while a 10-2 record means you aren't a "15 game winner". Baseball people think in terms of counting stats, and ignore the rates far too often. Yeah, the counting stats are meaningless though, especially when you take the positives only like hits, SBs, wins, and ignoring the negatives like outs, CS, losses. Saying a pitcher has 15 wins like it's a good thing when they also have 16 losses is like saying Ford has 4 billion in revenues while ignoring the fact that the company's expenses were 4.5 billion and they lost half a billion dollars. Calculating value in baseball and business is not much different. If you want to know how valuable something is, you take what you invested, whether it's dollars or at-bats, and see what you got out of those dollars or at-bats. The more output you get out of your inputs, the more valuable an investment, business, or baseball player you have. It confounds me to no end how ignorant the supposedly learned "baseball people" can be. prime example: 2006 Juan Pierre lead the league in hits. He also lead the league in outs made. The result, 200+ hits and a batting average well under .300. 700 AB's for a leadoff hitter is inexcusable I was thinking of Pierre when I mentioned hits, he's the textbook example of why counting stats don't matter. His SB% is only a little above the breakeven point (around 74% last year), but a lot of people think he's one of the league's best basestealers because he gets so many. as i've said before, despite the popular perception, juan pierre isn't really good at anything anymore. paying him for not being good is nearly as bad as paying marquis for not being good. marquis, however, isn't paid for as long or as much.

from my experienced with schizophrenia, and judging from what others have told me, i'd say he's probably a schizophrenic with one hell of a case worker.

Dusty? Hey I didn't come up with the chicken/egg they did so I tried to answer it in a way they might understand. i'm convinved that someone has kidnapped the real CCF.

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well. But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it. But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know? Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal? this has turned into a strange chicken/egg argument. Why? You never steal and go station to station. I assume you have get your stats from the players from other teams but regarding your homegrown guys you'll have no clue on what to do. You see, to be able to compare and use stats you actually have to use examples to extract that information so you could make a knowledgable decision. Since you don't want teams to steal where do you get this info? If every team listens to you and thinks the sully way is the best way how would anyone know what kind of % rate any player would have? well, since on the whole, stealing is unnecessary and more often than not destructive, there'd be no need. So now you're abandoning it all together. Fine. Have you also got rid of bunting too? with everyone who isn't the pitcher or neifi perez. yes.

I think he was looking for the highest paid guy out there who would have a relatively poor production/salary ratio. Aramis is a very good hitter. But he's not elite, and he's got some downside risk. The Cubs absolutely had to keep him though. i think he's more than elite at his position, though. 3 years in a row with a 900 ops is pretty impressive.

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well. But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it. But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know? Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal? this has turned into a strange chicken/egg argument. Why? You never steal and go station to station. I assume you have get your stats from the players from other teams but regarding your homegrown guys you'll have no clue on what to do. You see, to be able to compare and use stats you actually have to use examples to extract that information so you could make a knowledgable decision. Since you don't want teams to steal where do you get this info? If every team listens to you and thinks the sully way is the best way how would anyone know what kind of % rate any player would have? well, since on the whole, stealing is unnecessary and more often than not destructive, there'd be no need.

Wow, what a terrible deal for Detroit, Millen strikes again. :lol: Seriously. Getting Bly was his one great move and he just undid it. i think it'sa good move. he improves his o-line and running back depth while somewhat weakening his secondary. now, i'd look for detroit to trade down and take hall.

Bly along with Bailey will make it very difficult to pass against Denver. Bly isn't that good. He's no better than Darrent Williams, who they lost. his best years are behind him.

I guess the question would make sense if every player on this hypothetical team was homegrown and had also never attempted a steal in the minors as well. But since that isn't really ever possible, then I would imagine that the point is that you can look at a lot of players' past history to see whether or not they are a decent base stealer. Someone like Pierre had years and years of data to look at, we didn't need to tell him to try to steal 50 bases for us last year before we knew how good he was at it. But if baseball goes the sully method in 2015 how do you know? My point is that somebody has to make the attempt to even get the numbers for you to base your decision on. Also, don't you need a decent sized sample too? Pierre has that and you're right but what about guys that don't. What if Murton could steal at 82% of the time but since they never try how would we ever know? Not only that but what if in the scenerio you are talking about, you have a manager that runs him all the time and his rate stinks because of it. He's hovering around 64% so you disregard him and never steal? this has turned into a strange chicken/egg argument.

you make decisions based on past trends. if i took control of the cubs today, i'd have an accurate set of data in which to base my decisions on. the importance of stealing is a hotly debated topic. based on past performace, there are only a few players that i would give the green light to, carlos beltran being one of them. i don't know how cesar izturis has anything to do with the discussion, either.

there are so few players who are actually good at both getting on base and stealing bases that it's worthless to talk about. yes, if the cubs could get a guy with a high OBP and a high steal percentage, i wouldn't mind it. however, aside from the few guys in the league, they just don't exist. i'll take a guy like youkilis over a player who isn't really good at anything, like pierre. it's overvalued, although not as much as it was before. teams are learning from sabermetrics and moving on, leaving teams like the 2006 cubs in their wake. Who said anything about getting on base and stealing? Are you saying that if a bad hitter like Izturis could steal at a 80% rate is not better than than an Izturis that could steal at a 62% rate? Also, to get any steal rate you have to actually attempt to steal in the first place. On your team you have guys going station to station and play it safe depending on the batters skills ALL the time. Isn't Youkilis good at getting on base? I would assume he is if you have him leading off thus he's good at something, correct? i don't understand what you're arguing, here. Regarding all 3 statements? I'm asking you how do you even know what the steal rate could even be if you never steal? 1. you're asking if a player who steals at a better rate has more value? do you really want the answer to that or is it rhetorical? you see, the question is just not geared towards the argument, you're all over the board here with irrelevant scenarios. 2. that's what stats or for, they tell you how effective a player is at stealing a base. again, i don't know what you're arguing. 3. ????? i never said youkilis wasn't good at something. on the contrary, he's very good at getting on base. i said pierre wasn't good at really anything. i'm really confused as to what you're trying to say. formulate a consistent argument and i'll address it.

there are so few players who are actually good at both getting on base and stealing bases that it's worthless to talk about. yes, if the cubs could get a guy with a high OBP and a high steal percentage, i wouldn't mind it. however, aside from the few guys in the league, they just don't exist. i'll take a guy like youkilis over a player who isn't really good at anything, like pierre. it's overvalued, although not as much as it was before. teams are learning from sabermetrics and moving on, leaving teams like the 2006 cubs in their wake. Who said anything about getting on base and stealing? Are you saying that if a bad hitter like Izturis could steal at a 80% rate is not better than than an Izturis that could steal at a 62% rate? Also, to get any steal rate you have to actually attempt to steal in the first place. On your team you have guys going station to station and play it safe depending on the batters skills ALL the time. Isn't Youkilis good at getting on base? I would assume he is if you have him leading off thus he's good at something, correct? i don't understand what you're arguing, here.

there are so few players who are actually good at both getting on base and stealing bases that it's worthless to talk about. yes, if the cubs could get a guy with a high OBP and a high steal percentage, i wouldn't mind it. however, aside from the few guys in the league, they just don't exist. i'll take a guy like youkilis over a player who isn't really good at anything, like pierre. it's overvalued, although not as much as it was before. teams are learning from sabermetrics and moving on, leaving teams like the 2006 cubs in their wake.

No it isn't. Fair market value is based on what the market is willing to give you. If you don't hit the market, there's no judging of what that market is. Coaches hit free agency all the time. College coaches are virtual free agents at all times, as are most coordinators. Then you have your steady supply of former head coaches not under contract. Yes, it is-and Lovie would have been paid by a team. Just as we know what Z's approximate value by looking at similar players even though he has not hit the market yet, so we can know Lovie's market value by looking at what similar successful coaches have received. simply looking at and citing what other coaches have gotten is not what fair market value means, though. we have no idea what the market would have been for lovie, maybe mike holmgren money, who knows? lovie may have gotten his money but he would have had to wait to receive "fair market value". this point has been driven home lately by chicago radio personalities, so if you want to debate "fair market value" with someone, call boers and bernsy today at the score between 2 and 6, dan bernsetin will be more than willing to share with you what the term means.

102 RBI for Soriano in the leadoff spot? with Izturis in the 8-hole? I don't know, that's crazy talk if I ever heard it. Not really-Soriano had 95 RBI's last year getting a .244/.318/.326 out of the 8 spot, and a .183/.243/.269 out of the 9 spot. That should be able to be at least duplicated by Cub hitters, and quite possibly exceeded-also considering the Cubs will likely score more runs than the Nationals did, so Soriano will get more AB's and more RBI chances-I don't see how 102 is crazy at all if he hits 40 HR again. plate appearances, plate appearances.