CWSGuy406

Anyone see the Eduardo injury? That's one of the most digusting things I've ever seen.

Someone at ESPN needs to be slapped. I just saw on their bottom line: "Northwestern leads (14) Indiana, 22-16 2nd half." Of course, I check cbs.sportsline and see it's the first half. Cripes. That's terrible.

QUOTE(gbuk @ Feb 23, 2008 -> 06:56 AM) I'm not a big fan of Tom Crean at all, never really have been since DWade left, because he hasn't proven he can do anything without a future NBA stud. General question for you though, what are Crean's faults in coaching, in terms of gameplans and etc.? Because I really do refuse to believe with a backcourt like this one that they should be as erratic as they are. Keeping this relatively short: - Their gameplan versus teams who can play a good zone-defense is generally poor. They pass around the perimeter a lot and can't seem to penetrate the zone. Eventually they start chucking up threes and if you make it a game where Marquette has to rely on the three-ball, Marquette is probably going to lose. - I'm not sure that Crean has used this group correctly. I'd say we're more athletic than 75% of the teams we play, but there are games where we don't push the tempo when we should. Marquette isn't a half-court offense team. They're better when they try to play in transition. Lately I think they've gotten better at this (trying to play a faster-paced game)but they're still not at where I think they should be at (in that regard). - I don't think Crean is great at in-game adjustments, although I'm making that statement without a lot of confidence (mainly because I don't know what I could point to to prove my point). And finally, this doesn't have to do with his coaching, but he hasn't been the greatest recruiter. He hasn't pulled in one five-star recruit and he hasn't pulled in very many four-stars, either. I think he's improving in this area, though, mainly because of Buzz Williams (new assistant coach).

QUOTE(RME JICO @ Feb 22, 2008 -> 02:30 PM) It is a waste to put Epstein and Cashman on there, probably Minaya too. Who can't put winning teams together with those payrolls? That's BS. Epstein and Cashman have certainly made their fair share of poor moves, but their good moves far outweigh their bad moves. Furthermore, both teams (appear to) have become excellent at drafting and development -- arguably two of the top five teams in all of baseball at drafting + development (IMHO). Taking this even further, how many times did the Sox finish behind Minny despite having a much bigger payroll? Oakland over everyone in the AL West? The Cubs (usually) behind at least St Louis and Houston? Of course having more money is an advantage, but being intelligent is a much bigger part of the equation. And w/r/t DePodesta, the two main cogs in their rotation last season -- Penny and Lowe -- were DePo moves. Lowe has given LA 630+ innings of an ERA+ of (~) 120 and Penny has given them about 600 innings of a 120 ERA+. Jeff Kent has been similarly awesome. Letting Adrian Beltre go was a brilliant move, and the "opt-out" on JD Drew's deal turned out even better. Wikipedia also lists guys like Matt Kemp, Russell Martin and James Loney in association with DePo -- I'm not sure if he drafted them (too lazy to check). So basically... DePo was f***ed and -- while he may not be a perfect GM in every aspect -- he deserves another shot somewhere else.

QUOTE(gbuk @ Feb 22, 2008 -> 04:51 AM) Just look at what James has done in Big East play and down the stretch the last two years and that's really all you need to know about him. Wonderful -- more of the "It's all James' fault!" crowd. I get enough of that up here. If you've watched even a reasonable amount of Marquette basketball over the past couple seasons, it's clear how much worse of a team Marquette is when James is off the floor. Does that make James a great player? No, not in the least. But I absolutely hate it that the faults of Tom Crean (not having a good gameplan against teams with a zone, among other things) are put on the shoulders of DJ.

QUOTE(gbuk @ Feb 22, 2008 -> 04:51 AM) Ever heard of exaggeration to make a point? Clearly they've been out of funks together many times, but I still don't trust either of them. I am absolutely not an expert about everything, but to say they've been anything but erratic over the past 2 years would be wrong. Offensively they've been erratic, sure, but both of them bring it to the defensive end just about every night. That's why -- bringing this back to my original question -- I wouldn't worry about a team that is 'guard-oriented'. I'm fairly confident that our top three can match up (defensively) with just about anyone's in the nation. The issue arises when we face a team with athletic (or just plain talented) #3-4 types -- guys that spring to mind are Alexander at WVU, Adrien at UConn, Singler for Duke (although I'm fairly certain if we didn't get the treatment from the refs -- something like an 11 foul difference between the two teams -- we win that game), Clark for Louisville. Obviously there are other factors at play, but we simply don't have a matchup for those types. Add in a better-than-competent big man -- Thabeet, Mr Facilitator (Padgett), Harangody -- and Marquette is in a LOT of trouble. That's why I'm cautiously optimistic about Mbakwe. He plays much bigger than his 6'7 (?) frame. And fathom's Sweet 16 statement isn't completely off-the-wall. So long as they finish out the season relatively well, they should be in that 5-8 range as far as seeding, so they'll most likely be a first round favorite. Of course, a 5-to-8 seed would make them a second round underdog, but unless it's an 8-vs-2 or 7-vs-3 matchup, they wouldn't be that much of an underdog. My expectations right now are at 1.5 wins -- I think the final four Big East games will determine whether that number goes up or down a half a win.

QUOTE(gbuk @ Feb 22, 2008 -> 04:41 AM) Sweet 16 appearance, really? A team as erratic as a whole and individually as they are? Lacking a true force down low in the slightest won't allow them to go much of anywhere unless James and McNeal decide to stay out of their funks, which has never happened. Hah -- thank you for that. That isn't hyperbolic in the least. But hey, I'm glad we have another 'all-every-team, all-every-conference' expert around here -- can never have too many of those.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 06:42 AM) Beat me to it. I just found it. Then there was the follow up to in this thread: http://www.soxtalk.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=57597 Now I'm not trying to "OWN3D!" you, I just thought it was interesting that your view on Roberts changed so much over the year. I'm sure many people share that same opinion of Roberts. I think the two topics -- trading Danks + (whatever) for Roberts and the Roberts contract -- independent of each other. I like Roberts and think he's a better ballplayer than Iguchi -- better baserunner, better defensively and better offensively. I wouldn't want the Sox, however, to trade Danks for him. That'd strike me as an extremely short-sighted move. It would strike me as basically giving up on Danks after one year. Furthermore, while I do recognize that Roberts is a decent player, I don't think he can be considered an *elite* second-baseman. And he's 30 -- second-baseman after that age tend to fall and fall hard (not necessarily at age 30 -- I'm pretty sure you know what I mean). And the reasoning behind getting Roberts is something that irks me -- that we need to acquire a "leadoff hitter". I still find that notion completely ridiculous. One thing I ended up being right about (broken clock?) was Iguchi: The market for average-ish middle infielders just doesn't appear to be very good. Did anyone who plays SS/2B really cash in this winter, other than Castillo? Heck, did Iguchi even up with one year, $4 million? Or was it less than that?

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 02:51 PM) 2, but then face a team with a big man (maybe UCLA in a 1 vs 4 game). At least McNeal and James seem to be getting out of their funk. Funny that you're more optimistic than I am. I'd say one win, getting Crean off the "no wins without Wade" schnide, but nothing past the first weekend. Then again... if Mbakwe is as good a defender as everyone is touting him to be (just about everyone who talked about the pre-season Kansas State/Marquette scrimmage said Mbakwe was the only guy to play decent defense on Beasley), I can see a Sweet 16 appearance.

QUOTE(bmags @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 09:46 PM) honestly if you just google the cool kids totally flossed out EP link you could get it. QUOTE(MHizzle85 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 06:27 PM) I can get you their EP if you'd like, just let me know. Can you guys post a link? I (admittedly) half-assed my search attempt for it, but the one place I did click just had the "88" song that I could play but not download. It would be greatly appreciated.

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 21, 2008 -> 01:41 AM) Interesting they burned his redshirt season. I don't blame them. It would've been tough for Crean to say "no" to him, you know? Kid tears his ACL (IIRC) in the pre-season and works his ass off to get back on the court within an amazingly short amount of time, and you're going to tell him that he's going to have to watch the final five games of the regular season, the Big East tournament as well as the NCAAs (hopefully -- I think we need at least two more BE wins to guarantee a spot)? If Crean tells him no, he'd also be risking pissing Mbakwe off (thank God Tubby Smith came a year late, as who knows if Crean still grabs him if Tubby was at Minny) to the point of transfering. Damn did he play well tonight. He was challenged one time in the post and took a charge (probably flopped a bit but whatever, play to the refs), went up strong when he got the ball on offense and grabbed some real nice rebounds. He's immediately become our most competent big man. Gun to your head here, fathom -- Marquette wins X amount of games (if they get a bid) in the NCAAs this year.

This game is playing just like last night. Hawks came out and played well in the first, but the Wild have controlled the play in the second. Also... why the f*** did Savard split up Toews and Kane again? I don't like that Kane-Lang-Havlat line -- which of those guys on that line can play in the corners? Which of those guys can play in front of the net? Of course, I'm sure we'll see Savard b**** out Havlat again for not doing something that he's never done and most likely never will do.

Trevor Mbakwe is the f***ing man. That's one helluva midseason addition for Marquette.

QUOTE(Vance Law @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 06:24 PM) I've asked this before. I believe I was told that there is a stat called Total Average that incorporates steals/caught stealings, but I've still never seen Pods or anyone else's numbers for this. I'd be interested in seeing a stat that can incorporate batting, basestealing, and base running. Why not just use EqA? I think that may be what you're looking for (his EqA last year was .233 where -- IIRC -- .260 is average). It doesn't take into account what you go on to mention later, i.e. how successful a guy is at going from first to third, second to home, but I don't think any stat will do that. I think it's fair to assume that if you have as much speed as Owens does -- and as long as you're not a total moron on the basepaths -- you're going to rate pretty well in non-SB 'baserunning'. Moving back for a second, the question would be whether Owens advantages in his glove (in CF) and baserunning cancel out Quentin's bat. I say no, although if Quentin hits like Anderson did in 2006, there's certainly a case to be made.

Not to say SFF is wrong, but I saw more of what DBAHO saw -- an intent of a knee-to-knee hit with a little bit of a hip-check thrown in there. It wasn't completely scummy in that he didn't go out of his way to throw the knee at his knee (ala that scum-sock Klesla -- although IIRC he went hip-to-knee on Ruutu), but it did look like he made a little bit of a move towards his knee.

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 04:45 AM) Wow. I remember you being all over Roberts when we were discussing signing Iguchi to a longer term deal before the 2007. I don't remember this. Do you recall the context in which I said whatever it is that I said?

QUOTE(DBAH0 @ Feb 20, 2008 -> 03:18 AM) Something like I dunno, Danks + Richar + Uribe for Roberts (maybe with us adding in something else). That would be a miserable deal. Yippee -- let's trade arguably our brightest young pitcher for a non-elite 30-year old second-baseman just to fill the imaginary hole of not having a "leadoff man".

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 06:01 PM) Hate to break it to you, but I meant Damion James on Texas. //middle finger Clarity, fathom -- clarity! I thought we could have a nice post (or two) long discussion about our favorite point guard before the topic of Big Ten overratedness, Kansas/Self bashing or Iowa State talk restaked it's claim. I think I've heard four times in the past month (from four different people) that Padgett is the best "facilitator" in the nation.

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 10:35 PM) While I agree that is a bad thing, it goes both ways. The team with less talented 1-on-1 player teams would obviously try and win the game in the last few min of regulation, or go balls to the wall in OT. I think that would lead to a lot more excting OT's, along with fewer SO. How much more exciting can OTs be than they currently are? They're wide open as is, and I can't recall the last time I saw an OT that wasn't wide open with lots of opportunities. I'd say the problem lies with the last few minutes of regulation. I don't think I necessarily have a problem with the one-point awarded in OT, although some people clearly don't like that (as evidenced by the last several posts). My feelings are that if you play 60 minutes to a stalemate, you deserve some type of reward. The problem is teams playing for that one point, which isn't the fault of the teams -- not in the slightest sense -- but still ends up being (somewhat) of a detriment to the fans. And I think that goes back to my -- err, Krush's, actually -- point about a non-uniform point total being handed out every night. Three (or, for the folks who don't like the one-point for OT losers, two*) points should be up for grab. I suppose I could come to live with a system that just awarded two points nightly -- that would be uniform -- but I just know that the current system in place isn't what's best for hockey. *Just for clarification, because that may be poorly worded -- I'm talking about OT-losers, the guys who lose in OT. I'm not calling anyone a here a "loser" (I think it's relatively clear, but just in case it's not).

I think it would be pretty terrible for a team to make it all the way to the shootout and leave the game with nothing all because they don't have as many good 1-on-1 players as the other team. The shootout now isn't a huge deal -- one team gets one point, the other gets two points. If you change it to 2-0 (points), the shootout takes on a much, MUCH greater importance, and that's not a good thing.

f***in' Stephen Gerrard! "What a hit, son -- what a hit!"

That's the biggest problem I see with the system -- not every result is equal points. Some nights are two points, some are three -- that doesn't seem right.

QUOTE(fathom @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 05:07 PM) So, here's Fathom's 1st and 2nd team All-Americans so far, as well as Freshman All-American and underrated All-American 1st team AA / 2nd team AA / Frosh AA / Underrated G D.J. Augustin / J. Bayless / Bayless / S. Gaines G C. D-Roberts / E. Gordon / Gordon / D. Downey C T. Hansbrough / K. Love / Love / J. Varnado F R. Anderson / D.J. White / D. Greene / Tyler Smith F M. Beasley / L. Harangody / Beasley / D. James From you? I'm surprised -- you usually have "over" before "rated", not "under". I've really come to appreciate his defense this season. He's the best on-the-ball defender we have -- better than McNeal. His vision and passing ability are top-notch as well. Still a 'meh' shooter, but he's been making better decisions this season.

Meh -- I read (and posted a few times at) that site. It's okay but nothing special... he kind of relays what happened, finds some neat articles, but he's still not what I'm looking for re: good analysis, stuff that makes you think. There's a good Oilers site I know of, and there's a humorous site that often has Blackhawk comments (or commentaries), but nothing like a South Side Sox for the Sox, Blog-a-Bull for the Bulls or The Football Outsiders for football (in general). It's a shame, too, because I think there's work to be done in that area. You can't break it down statistically the same way you do baseball -- really, baseball is the only (essentially -- it's obviously not as simple as I'm making it) one-on-one sport (out of the 'big 5' of football, futbol!, baseball, basketball and hockey) -- but I think the statistics used can be improved upon. Take PIM for example. Whenever I see a transaction, I usually see that stat referenced. Why is that? It's never made sense to me. A guy who takes a lot of penalties should be considered an asset? Or, to a lesser extent, +/- -- Duncan Keith and Brent Seabrook should be docked because Robert Lang can't cover his man in a 4-on-4 situation?

QUOTE(Tony82087 @ Feb 19, 2008 -> 04:14 AM) I really don't agree with a team getting a point at all for a loss. Now I totally understand the argument, "If Team A isn't down after 60 min of play, they deserve a point", but I just don't like the thought of a team getting rewarded for losing a game. I think 2-1-0 system would work best. I'd be open to hearing/reading people propose different systems -- I just don't like the current system. Hell, something that would be interesting would be going to soccer's system -- of course, that would mean overtime (and subsequently the shootout) would be scrapped, and that would never happen, but I honestly don't think I'd mind a three-points-for-a-win, one-point-for-a-tie system. Hockey needs to undergo a revolution in the blogosphere just like baseball has in the past ten(ish) years. I'd love to be able to read similar thoughtful analysis similar to that at SouthSideSox, The Hardball Times or BTF -- instead I get "Kicky McGee!" and more knee-jerk reactions than Soxtalk at you-know-where. I dunno -- maybe I'm not looking hard enough. (My second point is only somewhat related to the first -- I sort of went off on another tangent.)