Magnetic Curses

You guys shot very poorly from the outside but then seemed to get really tentative in the second half. We were playing very good defense (as we have all year) but just got lucky with you guys missing some open looks in the first half. In the second half I thought our defense was better, but when Dee and others got looks they passed them up and had to scramble late in the shot clock to throw something up. Jamar Smith was the one guy who took the shot every time he got an open look and I was surprised at the ones he missed in the first half. I don't know if I've seen that guy miss this year when I've seen an Illinois game. Taking Augustine out of the game was huge, he never really got involved. After he had that big dunk mid-way through the 2nd half I thought he was going to go on a tear but never did. Same thing with Dee when he knocked down that 3 early in the second half. I think everyone in the building thought he was going to get hot and take over after that shot but it never happened. You guys looked a lot more one-dimensional offensively than last year but I also think you play much better defense than last year's team. Guys are just a lot quicker on switch outs, get up on you much closer and really gave us no open looks in the first half. It looks to me like Bruce has put a much bigger emphasis on defense this year. Yeah Bruce has to concentrate more on defense this year because we don't have the same talent on offense. iowa would have probably beaten us anyway, but fwiw, the officiating in that game was the worst i've ever seen in any game this year, so far. every call favored iowa, every call.

i would have rather played the giants, we just match up better against them. that said, i'd rather play the panthers than the redskins or bucs. it's not much of a difference, though. the only thing i'm worried about is that we aren't a team built on the coach's ability to adjust, we're a team based on the ability of the players to adjust and excel because of speed and intelligence. don't expect lovie or rivera to change the game plan due to the previous one not working. this is where we're vulnerable, and fox is agood enough coach to make the necessary adjustments from last game and stick it down our throats. we'll see what happens. hopefully, the rest will have rejuvenated the defense and we'll simply destroy them.

best hitter.

I'll go off the board and say Brian Randle. That guy is probably the most gifted player we have and he's showing he's just not ready for big time basketball yet, even though he should be. I know he missed last year, but it's amazing how his easily his confidence can get shaken. I love Augustine, but once again he's decided not to show up for a big game. Yeah but Randle can actually play defense. OT somewhat, but it sure is great that my 2nd, 3rd, and 4th favorite sports teams are the most popular topic in their respective sports' threads. Randle really neutralized Ager tonight defensively. But I agree that he is very frustrating, because he may be the most athletic player in the Big 10, and seems to have no desire to show it. At least he has a couple years to get it. he was the difference on defense, but his perimter game is non-existent. he better work on it at some point.

So sad that I know that's from Demolition Man...*sigh* loser. :P

only over 1 sample, though, which is exactly the type of micromanagement that i'm talking about. with more of a sample size, your odds fluctuate. this is what you should attempt to reduce in the game of baseball. if it's a certainty that heads will come up 81 times and tails will come up 81 times over 162 flips, mixing it up could cost you. it's simple law of averages. calling heads 162 times will assure that you are correct exactly 50% of the time, while you push your luck by mixing it up. you could be more correct, or could be more incorrect, guessing is foolish if you have the talent. by calling heads, you are doing all you can to minimize chance. That's not true. There is no "law of averages." Statistically, there is no difference between picking heads every time and alternating between heads and tails. The real key in managing is figuring out which option has the greater likelihood of success across many trials, and sticking with that option. So, if you have a coin that produces heads 55% of the time, then you should always pick heads. But with a fair coin, it doesn't matter what you pick over the long haul. if you flip a coin enough times, heads and tails will ultimately gravitate towards being even. 162 times should be enough to get a fair distribution. if you take each situation by itself, out of the context of the whole, and approach it as being any different than any other situation, and act differently--there's a slight chance you could be wrong every time. while, if you're consistent with what you call, you'll be correct half the time. maybe there is someone who can explain it better than i can, but i believe that if you fluctuate between two different answers when each answer is assured to come up exactly 50% of the time, your averages will definitely fluctuate each time you perform the experiemnt. i could be wrong, though.

I think saying that Grudz isn't working on becoming a better hitter now just because he's reached this stage of his career is slightly excessive. fair enough, i dont' think he's working on a different hitting philosophy.

i never said that clutch pitching was fictional, just clutch hitting. pitchers, i believe, are subject to "clutchness".

only over 1 sample, though, which is exactly the type of micromanagement that i'm talking about. with more of a sample size, your odds fluctuate. this is what you should attempt to reduce in the game of baseball. if it's a certainty that heads will come up 81 times and tails will come up 81 times over 162 flips, mixing it up could cost you. it's simple law of averages. calling heads 162 times will assure that you are correct exactly 50% of the time, while you push your luck by mixing it up. you could be more correct, or could be more incorrect, guessing is foolish if you have the talent. by calling heads, you are doing all you can to minimize chance.

i would agree that hitters most definitely get hot (see the ball extremely well) over short and long stretches. the playoffs are agreat example of the hottest team winning, not necessarily the best. the marlins, red sox, and white sox are great examples of very hot hitting (and pitching) teams winning it all. sometimes, it all comes together at once, and generally those teams are able to win the series. But those "hot streaks" likely fall within the range of their average performance. They don't all of a sudden become better hitters, per se. If you flip a coin a thousand times, the chances of hitting some long streaks of all heads or tails is pretty high. Someone observing 8 heads in a row might say the coin is fixed. But those streaks happen with regularity--even in a random string of events. So, "getting hot" (at least in basketball and probably in baseball) is within the range of a player's average expected performance over many trials. This really shows the critical role of luck in small samples--like the playoffs. The teams that have a hot streak could be experiencing momentum, or they could be experiencing random fluctuation in their favor (i.e., luck). hey, your using my material! i always use the coinflip example. i generally use it to demonstrate the detriment of micromanaging. let's say that baseball is 60% luck and 40% skill. luck generally evens itself out over 162 games, sometimes it takes longer, but generally, luck is even for everyone over a large enough sample size. this means that talent wins out and everyone will win the exact same amount of coin flips. this does NOT work out when your manager is inconsistent in the way that he approaches the game. if the manager calls heads 81 games, and tails in 81 games, the luck might not even out and he has the possibility of costing the team games even with luck being absolutely even. this is why bunting, hit and runs, and stolen bases, imo, are coin flips, they introduce even more chance into a game in which you want to keep chance at a minimum, especially if your team has a lot of talent. only lesser talented teams rely on luck to win. if you DON'T behave consistently across all situations, you can cost your team runs and games. the best thing that a manager can do is trust in the ability of his ball club to hit the ball and get on base. there will be times when your team gets unlucky and loses games, there will also be games in which your team gets lucky and wins. trust in the law of averages and allow your team's talent to shine through.

you have a point with hawkins. hawkins does not have the peripherals to close, imo. he doesn't strike enough guys out or induce enough groundballs to be a closer. i think he may be more relaxed in the 7th or 8th, and is able to use his offspeed stuff more effectively, thus getting more awkward swings at pitches without much downward movement. if he had a dominant pitch (a sinking fastball, sinker, or slider), he might be able to get more k's and gbs, but he doesn't, so he must rely more on spotting his fastball and picking the places to throw his breaking stuff. if he's pressing, it's probably harder to locate his fastball effectively, thus setting up his offspeed stuff. i think this was really evident in the years that he closed for the cubs. he threw nothing but fastballs because he was unable to hit corners with them and refused to throw anything out of the zone--this caused him to get hit real hard.

garth: "yeah, when did you become a total nutbar?"

You seem to have anger issues. Threats aren't appropriate here. I don't have anger issues, and I'd be right behind him the whole way. I have extreme anger issues, and I'm in. "Crush, Kill, Destroy." 187. murder, death, kill.

I suggested this weeks ago, but was scoffed at. After all, OBP is the only stat that counts in baseball, remember? Michael Barrett is "significantly" better than Molina (not my words, mind you) offensively... so much so that defense doesn't matter. I was told that Molina would be a HUGE downgrade from Barrett. I agree with you. I'd take Molina over Barrett every day of the week. Better defensively and comparable offensively. Plus, Molina would likely cost less than Barrett, and Michael would net us something in return in a trade. Tejada? No, not with the Orioles needs and asking price. But, a useful player? Certainly. can the axe-grinding with OBP please freaking cease? what about barrett's clubhouse presence, don't we want to bring that up? he's always willing to lay down a sac bunt, doesn't that count for something? he's adept at the hit and run, that's a plus, right? yes, molina wouldn't be bad and yes he had a pretty good year last year. he's not a significant upgrade, and there are areas where upgrades would be more beneficial.

I don't agree with your assessment. I don't see finances or Dusty being the issue at all here. If anything, Hendry has shown a penchant to value pitching over hitting. Prior's future with the Cubs is going to come down to his health and his performance trend. so, if prior has a good couple of years in 2006-07, he'll get a big deal from the cubs? what i'm saying is that i have my doubts about hendry's ability to fill out the roster in an efficient manner. let's say prior and zambrano are amking in a combined 28-30 mil in 2008, if hendry and dusty are still in place, how do they fill out the rest of the roster with serviceable players?

i would agree that hitters most definitely get hot (see the ball extremely well) over short and long stretches. the playoffs are agreat example of the hottest team winning, not necessarily the best. the marlins, red sox, and white sox are great examples of very hot hitting (and pitching) teams winning it all. sometimes, it all comes together at once, and generally those teams are able to win the series.

i don't know how arizona won in washington, they've got to be the most underachieving, inconsistent team in the country. lute seems to have lost it, and needs to go. i don't know much about ucla, admittedly. Well, it appears Arizona had a tough nonconference schedule, which Washington and UCLA didn't have. Arizona is improving as the season goes, but will still be a disappointment. Not sure about Lute yet, he still gets the recruits. UCLA's an extremely guard-oriented team with little inside presence, but those guards - especially Afflalo and Farmar - are pretty good. I expect Arizona to win, but UCLA to repay the favor at Pauley. The four Pac 10 teams to make it to the tourney should be Washington, Arizona, UCLA and Cal. thanks for the info, Rais. since i moved back to midwest, my knowledge of the pac-10 has slipped a bit. i hope to get back out there within the next 5 years.

i would be fine with paying zambrano and prior huge money if i were more comfortable with the ability of hendry to field a cost-effective team. however, since dusty doesn't like to play the inexpensive, cost-efficient rookies, and hendry doesn't like the cost-efficient vetran players--i'd say prior's future with the cubs is in serious doubt.

while i wouldn't classify momentum as a leprechaun or unicorn; i'd probably call it a yeti, sasquatch, or loch ness monster, as it's existence is possible, yet still unproven.

i don't know how arizona won in washington, they've got to be the most underachieving, inconsistent team in the country. lute seems to have lost it, and needs to go. i don't know much about ucla, admittedly.

if you can't measure clutch accurately, there's no way of identifying a unicorn. so anyone who says that a hitter is a unicorn based on what flawed metrics there are, they are probably wrong. and if someone tries to identify a unicorn by simply watching a game, they are almost always wrong.

As a UK grad and rabid fan, I should point out that if ANYONE thinks Sparks is a star, they're fools. Really. he couldn't guard a man if you sewed his face to the player's jersey. he's a good shooter, a poor defender, and he's slow. That's from a Rabid fan. He's also about to lose his starting job to sophomore Ramel Bradley. I would trade Sparks for Hansbrough RIGHT NOW and never think twice about it (and I hate UNC). And for the record, he hasn't been around UK forever. This is only his second season with the Wildcats. (he tansferred as a junior). i know it's only his second season with UK, but that wasn't my point. it just seems like he's been around college basketball forever. remember, illinois played wku his sophomore year, and even then, there were fans telling me that he was better than dee or deron.

Not to me. I am a Wood detractor becuase he hasn't learned to be a pitcher yet. He is still a thrower. He has yet to learn to control the strike zone and seems to lose concentration at times. IMO, all this leads to arm and shoulder troubles. thank you for not mentioning "mechanics", i would have gone on my token steve stone rant. Sully, Without search being enabled, some may not know what beef you have with Stone and his criticism of Woody's mechanics. Can you elaborate? i think steve stone is full of crap when it comes to woody. does he have bad mechanics? probably, but there are many pitchers who have bad mechanics that are also very successful. pitching is very hard on your shoulder, and if you're good pitcher, it's also pretty hard on your elbow. overhand throwing is not a natural motion, so, you could say that all overhand pitchers have bad mechanics. woody has also gotten this far based on his mechanics, any attempt to perform a major overhaul to his motion and mechanics could result in him losing the effectiveness that has gotten him so far in this league. maybe you could slightly tweak his mechanics, but anything major would be detrimental. yes, we all want to magically fix our pitchers and make them superstars that never get hurt. we all want Dr. Tom Marshall to be some sort of sorcerer that has discovered some occult way of creating the perfect pitcher, but the reality is, any pitcher can get hurt at any time. wood has been a very above average pitcher during his career that has thrown over 200 innings twice, and thrown over 140 innings five times, it's not like he runs into the clubhouse screaming and holding his arm after his first spring training toss every season. leave it be, if he gets hurt again, he'll probably be close to being out of baseball, if he doesn't, he'll probably be a top 10 pitcher and a strikeout champ that throws the most insanely sick pitches in baseball, let's not try to mess with that.

it's very likely that this is a very far-fetched situation that probably wouldn't come up. i'd obviously take lee, though.

I don't think it makes sense to compare across sports. Why not. People were debating whether clutch was real, and I gave an example of an athlete that was by far the most clutch player in sports history. I'm generally for objective analysis but I don't think statistics tell you all there is to know about every ball player. You could have two equal players based on basic metrics, but one might just respond better to pressure situations. I don't think that concept is so foreign that it should be mocked (not saying you are mocking it goony - but treebeard sort of did). I wouldn't make 90% of my decisions based on it, but as former assistant coach/private coach I had an idea of who I would want under pressure, and I certainly didn't study numbers. It's simple. You want your best player up in crucial situations. Not the guy who seems like he always comes through. Edit: I have no idea why my font is so large. It's on normal. despite your large font, you've hit the nail on the head.