CWSGuy406

There's a familiar sight. Gotta love the CS -- at least he was aggressive!

QUOTE(whitesoxfan101 @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 02:21 PM) EVERYTIME i've ever seen Marquette, that's their offense, only sometimes it somehow works since Crean can recruit. And that's true to a certain extent. The thing that Marquette USUALLY does differently is that they try and push the tempo, try and push the ball up the floor. I can't recall one time that they pushed it last night. They tried to get into their half-court sets -- which suck in the first place -- and played right into the hands of MSU. Ugh. Next year is the year that Crean is going to make his money. James, Matthews and McNeal all juniors. Hayward starting for a whole year, practicing with the team for a whole summer. Senior leadership with Fitzgerald; and on that same note, hopefully Ooseman will learn how to catch a basketball. Plus MU is bringing in an athletic PF in Trevor Mbakwe (sp?) and a Travis Deiner-shooter type in (don't know his first name) Christopherson. Marquette's window is the next two seasons. Crean needs to win -- in my mind -- at least three or four tourney games in the next two seasons.

Someone please tell me that last nite was some sick, sadistic dream. I mean, Marquette couldn't possilbly have ZERO 2-point FGs at halftime. My Golden Eagles couldn't look THAT clueless against Izzo's defense... Right? Somebody?

QUOTE(Soxbadger @ Mar 16, 2007 -> 12:51 AM) s*** Big 10 sucks, MSU shouldnt have been in the tourney? Experts are a joke, DEFENSE WINS CHAMPIONSHIPS. Almost was going to go with MSU over UNC BTW, I wouldn't toot your Big 10 horn for that game. Marquette would've lost to any of the 64 teams today... Kudos to MSU for their solid defensive work, but Crean's offensive gameplan appeared to be to set a bunch of meaningless screens and dribble around the perimeter until the shot clock winded down -- then shoot a three.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 11:57 PM) Yup, that's a dislocated elbow. I'm glad CBS felt the need to zoom on it multiple times. Marquette's 2-3 zone sucks. Marquette's offense against a 2-3 zone sucks. We're lucky to be down nine. Awful half so far.

Jerel McNeal (Marquette) is dressing for the game tonight.

Anyone know how to get it to show the new games? Mine is showing the Georgetown/Belmont game, but the only other game it is allowing me to watch is the WashSt/ORAL game. The other games still say 'preview' despite the fact that they're in the second half.

The four seeds this year are pretty interesting. On one hand, you have Maryland and Virginia who, in my mind, are seeded at least one spot (if not two) too high. Then there's Texas and SIU who you could probably make an argument for as threes. I love this. I have Tech/BC on my HD TV and MMOD on my computer. Go Davidson!

Louisville up 20 on Stanford with a couple minutes left in the first half. I can't believe so many people picked Stanford... (watch Stanford come back and win, making me the fool)

QUOTE(santo=dorf @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 02:09 AM) Roberts only has one year that really stands out. Durham got plenty of money this offseason despite being 35 years old. I think $15 million over 3 years is fair. Roberts was pretty comparable to Iguchi last year, except Roberts stole 36 bases. I don't think Durham is a fair comparison -- he just came off of a year in which he slugged .538. I understand that his defense is pretty bad at this point, but he's out of Roberts and Iguchi's league offensively.

QUOTE(BearSox @ Mar 11, 2007 -> 12:41 AM) very good article on why PECOTA and Baseball Prospectus suck... http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sp...tesox-headlines An article about Nate Silver explaining -- and saying the projection itself is poor -- the PECOTA projection shows why BP sucks? I had to make a change for Mr. van Dyck's article:

QUOTE(greasywheels121 @ Mar 15, 2007 -> 03:13 AM) Is he playing or not? Did Marquette just want to f*** up people's brackets? If he plays, it'll be in a limited role off the bench. He is, without a doubt, Marquette's best defender, so Crean would probably have him chase Neitzel around for ten minutes or so, give some rest to guys like Cubillan and James to do more damage offensively. Yikes... MU has been without him for the past three games. They beat Pitt without him, won comfortably at St. John's, and lost to Pitt by ten in the BETourney. Even without McNeal, MU is more talented than MSU. MU should be able to pull it out. I guess we'll see tomorrow.

QUOTE(SleepyWhiteSox @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 03:36 PM) But I admit that I still have mixed feelings because I am having trouble envisioning what he is supposed to develop into. Can he develop into a legitimate star starting power forward even though he is so thin and undersized? Can he develop an offensive game? PF is what his game translates to because he just doesn't have the tools (ball-handling ability, jump shot/outside shot, etc.) to be a SF, of which we have a couple of legitimate ones on the team already anyways. The freakish athleticism, shot-blocking instincts, and energy is there, though. That was my main problem with TT when the Bulls drafted him. I didn't/don't think he could stick as a 3/SF because his jump shot is pretty ugly outside of ~10 feet. I didn't/don't think he could fit as a 4/PF because he might be a little too weak and I didn't see much of a 'post-game' at LSU. If he ends up sticking -- he's off to a pretty good start -- I'd guess it's as a four. I don't think his jump shot will improve a whole lot, but he can work on his post-moves -- I've seen him use that 'baby hook' once in a while, and if he catches the ball on the block and faces up, he's quick enough to pivot and face-up and just go right around his defender.

http://sports.yahoo.com/ncaab/photo?slug=2...120&prov=ap

QUOTE(knightni @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 09:13 PM) Roberts has a better offensive history and more speed. And better defensively (at least according to Tango's 2006 Scouting Report). And younger. If Iguchi's agent asked for three years at $5 million per, I'm fairly certain that David Hahn or Kenny Williams would walk out of the room laughing. 3/$4 seems more reasonable, but even that might be a little high.

QUOTE(Gregory Pratt @ Mar 14, 2007 -> 06:26 PM) They are facts, per se, but they're misleading as well. We might see BA go on like these guys -- I doubt it -- or we might see BA go on to be a little below league average -- probably -- or we might see him go up there and fail completely again. You seem to be missing a larger point. Nobody is saying that Brian Anderson is going to be the next Justin Morneau, Paul Konerko, or Alfonso Soriano offensively. Just that struggling in your first 300 major league ABs doesn't mean you're never going to make it. Also, as a larger point -- I would tend to say that most Anderson backers don't even know if he's going to be successful if the Sox give him 500 ABs in CF this year. His minor league numbers were good, but not the numbers of a star in the making. But here's the thing -- we want to know whether or not he's the Sox' future CFer. He might be, he might not be -- at this point, nobody really knows. All most of the BA backers want is to see how Anderson handles a full season. And yes, last year, BA 'technically' was on the team for a full year, but his ABs were sporadic at best for a supposed 'starter'. Ozzie jerked him around -- he wouldn't let him face righties despite the fact that he was doing better vs them than lefties. And then there was the suspension. For the most part, he was bad at the plate, but even with that, he was our best CF option in the 2nd half -- Mackowiak had cooled down offensively and was awful in the OF. This is a HUGE decision for the Sox too, BTW. Erstad is -- at best -- a one year 'fix'. His defense in CF is only going to get worse -- ditto his already mediocre bat. Next offseason, Andruw Jones and Ichiro are among two CF options next offseason. If you let Anderson have a full season and he hits, say .250/.315/.415 in 450+ ABs, you can be pretty confident that he's making strides to becoming a league average bat with an above average glove. And no -- that doesn't mean he'd be better than Jones or Ichiro in 2008, just that getting your future CFer becomes less of a 'need'. And hey, if he tanks -- which is certainly possible -- then you know that you need a new CFer, that Anderson is (more or less) done as a starter. Not to mention the fact that this team traded Chris Young because they thought Anderson was going to be competent enough to hold the spot down for the next six-ten (+) years. What an indictment on this organization that'd be to give up on BA after 365 ABs. That'd be absolutely pathetic and embarrassing.

QUOTE(IlliniKrush @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 10:01 PM) It's official, McNeal (Marquette) is out for the tournament. That's a shame. He was the MVP of this team, and it sucks that he got injured in practice. Or else I thought we could've given UNC a decent run for their money. I'll be happy if we can take MSU. Because they're not going any further than that. Ah, well... Great year, Jerel, come back next year and stay healthy. That's the year the program has been looking for since the Wade season.

QUOTE(AddisonStSox @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 08:52 PM) You people are joking, right? You are seriously joking? It's spring f***ing training. Get over yourselves. Why don't you go talk with Quick about how all prospects suck...

QUOTE(fathom @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 08:47 PM) We could only hope for that situation. After seeing how long it took Pods to get comfortable after surgery last year, there's no doubt in my mind he should spend the first decade, sorry, I meant month, on the DL. It just makes so much sense. That'd be arguably the best bench in baseball. Hall a perfect compliment to AJ; Ozuna as the speed guy who somehow maintains a .330 average without hitting the ball out of the infield; Cintron who can hit both ways reasonably well and can play both MIF spots; Mackowiak as one of the better bench players in all of baseball (when not used in CF, of course). The only thing it's missing is a true power guy, and that's where Perez fits in. Gripe all you want about the Sox' offseason, but I feel the biggest move -- or in thie case, non-move -- was retaining Podsednik. But at this point I sound like a broken record -- I think I've posted this exact same thing in different words about a hundred times this winter.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 13, 2007 -> 08:34 PM) 4-0 Sox. Damn you Darin. Erstad and Anderson have been two of the better Sox hitters this Spring. How about this... instead of those two competing for the CF job, we put one in LF and one in CF. Better defense in LF? Yup. Equal or slightly better production than last season? Yup. And a roster spot for Eduardo Perez, making the Sox bench uber-strong? Yup. Looks like that would leave one guy out in the cold...

I sort of found what I was looking for, but I still have a question. First, take a look at this map. I'm in the Chicago, red area -- but not the red with black 'checkers' area. On the map key, it says that the red-and-black area is "constant". I assume that means that, if you're in that area, they won't cut away from that game, period -- no ifs, ands, or buts? I just need to figure out whether it would be a better bet to just go to a place that has the March Madness package, or if I can chance it and stay home. And for those that don't know, I'm a Marquette fan, so the MU/MSU game is the one I'm going to want to see in full.

I know somebody (Balta, was it?) posted a map that was able to tell you which NFL game you would get every Sunday. Is there something similar to that for the tourney games? Maybe I'm not clear enough. Is there some kind of pre-determined schedule as to which game you will get, and if that game will cut out early? I want to know whether or not I should make my way to a sports-bar-ish type place for this week(end).

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 11:41 PM) Part of the problem with Marquette's schedule wasn't the best teams they played, but the rest of their non-conference schedule. Hillsdale (D-II, win doesn't count), Idaho St., Detroit, Eastern Mich, Valparaiso, Northwestern St, Maryland-Baltimore Co, Morgan St, Savannah St. Their best out of conference wins were Texas Tech, Duke, North Dakota State, Delaware State and Oakland. The last three certainly don't make anyone shake in their boots. In conference they went 10-6 with two wins against Pitt, one over Louisville and Villanova. Nice wins. But the rest of their wins were not against tourney teams. Plus, I still can't get over the name change. They are supposed to be the Marquette Warriors! I realize their OOC schedule wasn't the toughest, but in the end, their SoS ended up 17th with an RPI in the top 25. I certainly don't think the schedule can be used as a detractor for MU's resume. My guess is that the McNeal injury is the main reason for the bump down. James gets all the pub, but McNeal is the best player -- he's very strong defensively, he rebounds, and he's tough to guard -- this year he has developed a nice 15 foot jump shot, and his high shot release allows him to score over bigger guys. For me, the most frustrating teams is seeing teams who I consider to be inferior (pretty clearly, too -- but then again, I may be looking through blue-and-gold colored glasses) above my Eagles Warriors. I know it's a biased website, but I thought one poster did a real nice job of covering this at MU Scoop. There are at least three-four teams whose resume's don't hold a candle to MU's, yet they received higher bids. I understand what you're saying about locations, but I still don't think location should take prescident over a team's road to the Final Four. I just don't believe that a team with Marquette's resume deserves that round two game at Chapel Hill Winston Salem... yikes. I appreciate the responses, though, RH. And yeah... the whole "Golden Eagles" thing is lame, I can't see how or why anyone would find the name "Warriors" offensive. Pretty ridiculous, IMO, and most of the fan-base still chants "Let's go Warriors!", but it isn't the same. I don't have a heavy stance on it either way -- we could be the Pink Pixies and I couldn't care, so long as the basketball was of high quality.

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 03:17 AM) Their non-conference schedule was very weak also. Vs. Wisconsin, Duke, Texas Tech. Three tourney teams. Not great, but I've seen worse. That's also balanced by the fact that their conference schedule was so difficult. They played Louisville twice, Pitt three times, @ Georgetown, @ ND. I'm not going to make St John's out to be some powerhouse, but they're better than at least four teams in the Big Ten. But I digress -- I was the one who brought it up, and shame on me, but they're better than at least four teams in the Big 10 (I know -- nothing to crow about). I would guess this is the biggest reason for the eight seed. I don't want to ask for particulars here, just a general question -- do you guys get more info than the public does w/r/t injuries? Even so, by putting Marquette at an eight seed, the Selection Committee is essentially saying that there's AT LEAST 28 teams better than Marquette in the tourney. Sorry -- I'm not buying it. Their "body of work" is too strong. Not a chance on this earth that Indiana is better than MU. None at all.

QUOTE(Rowand44 @ Mar 12, 2007 -> 03:11 AM) We play at 8:50 Friday night, Dawg fans. God damn that's far away. Where can I find the times?