ZoomSlowik

Personally I don't think it's a major deal until he either stops working out all together or if he's still not pitching off the mound in late March. With his injury history I don't see the point in having him pitch like 30 innings in Spring Training. You know what he can do when he is healthy and you know that he has a rotation spot, so it's basically just an added injury risk at this point. So he gets about 6 fewer innings of work because of this, big deal. It's a little asanine to worry about Cubs' injuries until Opening Day. You know that their reports are never accurate and that all of their players always have some kind of problem, so it's not really news until they actually have to put him on the DL or until he has some kind of surgery.

QUOTE(Kalapse @ Mar 6, 2006 -> 12:45 AM) I did ok. I got a little stolen base happy and ended up with 120 SB between 2 players and 160 SBs between 4 players. It appears I may be a little light in the HR department with A-Rod being my one major HR threat. I went the other way, getting a pretty good amount of power but not all that much speed. I'm pretty happy with my team though. We'll see how it works out, I gotta play you in week one.

The draft is in less than 15 minutes. I actually got a decent pick for once.

How did it get over 8,000 votes for "I'm sick of these stupid freakin polls?" Who stuffed the ballot box?

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 08:39 PM) I was pretty proud of Vitale last night at one point in the game, as he stated that "Redick is probably one of the 20 best players in ACC history", that took me by suprise. Interesting, a few games ago he threw in a comment that JJ was the best in ACC history. That might be true, I don't really feel like trying to figure out how accurate that is.

Just because Redick scores a lot of points doesn't mean he isn't overrated. The only aspect of his game that is elite is his shooting. He's also probably below average as a defender, passer, and ball handler. He's a good player, but I shudder when I hear people like Dukie V say that he is the best player in ACC history. That's just a load of crap. He's definitely not in my top 10, and I don't even think he's the best Duke player.

QUOTE(Dick Allen @ Mar 4, 2006 -> 09:28 AM) Larry Bird and Magic Johnson weren't particularly known for their defensive prowess. Gordon isn't a very good defensive player, but he has improved. His offensive game is at times, unbelievable. Unless he's going in a trade or as part of a trade for a guy like Garnett, I hope the Bulls keep him. If I was Pax, there is no way I would trade him for Pierce. As for the draft, the Bulls certainly need some big players, and definitely need someone who can score on the block. But, I think it is still imperative they draft the best player on the board when they pick. You can get the other guys in FA or trades, and trades seem to be the way Pax is leaning right now. It is an extreme example and one that most likely does not apply to this draft or most drafts, but Portland probably cost itself several championships drafting a need instead of the best player in 1984. In 2 or 3 seasons when hopefully the Bulls are ready to contend for a championship, the glut at certain positions works itself out. It wasn't too long ago the Bulls had too many PF. Besides the obvious difference in talent level between those players, Gordon needs to get a few rings to ever be mentioned in the same sentence. Plus those guys stand 6'9" and 6'10." I wouldn't really call his offense "unbelieveable." There is never a night that I've looked at him and said "Ben Gordon is one of the best offensive players in the league." He's got a long way to go. One extreme example doesn't mean that the Bulls should just take the guy they think is the best player, especially since the Blazers still probably wouldn't have won it all. They were very short on big men and playmaking ability, so they'd have still needed a lot of work even if they did take Michael. A lot of people thought that Bowie was the better player anyways, it's an inexact science. On top of that there are plenty of other cases where things backfired because teams drafted a guy they didn't really need. You think Atlanta might want to take a do-over on the draft, or do you really think they're still happy with Marvin Williams over Chris Paul? The other problem is that our major area of strength and the position that we'd probably end up drafting if we used that philosophy is at SF. There are a lot of decent to good SF's in the league, so having 3 of them isn't really good, especially when none of them are elite and they can't play SG or PF. Unless we could deal one of them to bring in a big-time big guy, that doesn't help us at all. The only way that would happen is if the guy on his way out was Deng, which would really piss off a lot of Bulls' fans. None of these guys are Jordan, so it's kind of a mute point anyways.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 5, 2006 -> 12:07 AM) At least you don't like Iowa State. Come on, I'm a Northwestern fan. I've got it worse than any of you. At least your school has actually made the tournament.

Wow, the basketball gods really wanted me to look stupid today. I talk up NC State's chances to make a decent run in the tourney, and they promptly lay an egg against Wake. I say that I don't really like UNC's chances to make a good run, and they go out and beat Duke. I say I like Georgetown, and they get beat by friggin South Florida! Damn. Maybe I should change my opinion on NC State given how they are playing right now. I could understand UNC and a close one to BC, but Wake Forest? If they are a quick out in the ACC tourney, I renounce all faith in their chances to do anything. I still don't really like UNC outside of Hansborough and Terry, but obviously they are playing a lot better right now. As for Georgetown, that's just weird. South Florida shot well, but there's still no excuse. They're trying to make me have to drop them to. New rule for myself: No more predictions until the brackets come out. All the partial information is just giving me chances to stick my foot in my mouth.

QUOTE(ChWRoCk2 @ Mar 4, 2006 -> 07:04 PM) interesting I always try to draft a balance team but then my team just ends up being really horrible, never can ge the right combination. Id rather have pitching than hitting, theres always a hitter in free agency that busts out and I will go grab him to fill a gap in my hitting. Its always hard to find a pitcher in free agency usually they will start off hot and just fall down the line as the season goes on. It's easy to find decent hitters, but it's difficult to find highly productive hitters. You're very rarely going to find 30-homer hitters in FA, and if you do they'll probably have a low batting average or be a poor run scorer. With pitchers guys like Brett Myers, John Patterson, Dan Haren, Jose Conteras, Jon Garland, Zach Duke, and John Lackey were available either really late in the draft or in FA. Plus guys like Andy Pettitte, Chris Carpenter and Dontrelle Willis were drafted fairly late but provided elite performance. There are a few hitters that also did that, but not many finished with elite numbers, and the only ones I can think of that you might have had in FA were Roberts, Sizemore (but only because he started in the minors), Cantu, and maybe Ensberg depending on your league. You still need to draft pitchers, but there are very few pitchers that are a solid bet for elite production across the board, so you should usually pass on starters if higher caliber hitters are available. You're probably going to finish better if you take hitters in the first 3 or 4 rounds than if you do the reverse. A combination like Wright, Abreu, Berkman, and Delgado in the first 4 is probably going to fair a lot better than something like Santana, Pedro, Halladay, and Rivera. The disparity is even worse if you can get any of the top couple of hitters.

Two other guys I'd consider, but they were over my age limit of 26: Chase Utley and Jason Bay

In this order (I'm obviously sticking with younger guys): 1) Cabrera 2) Santana 3) David Wright 4) Felix Hernandez 5) Teixeira (nowhere to play, but I like his potential)

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 05:17 PM) It was defense. Both teams were playing very very tremendous defense. It was actually a really exciting game to watch. I remember tons of shot blocks and a lot of full court pressing. You also need to remember that both State and Iowa rank among the best in the country defensively. I loved it too cause Iowa was able to beat one of the better teams in the ACC. Well, I was at the NU-Iowa game, and that one truly was brutal to watch. There was a lot of sloppy play on offense. The defense was good, but I didn't think it was stellar. I thought NU played much better D against Wisconsin and OSU.

QUOTE(iWiN4PreP @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 03:44 PM) I just got a god-like team 12 Team League and i got these hitters, lol. C M. Barrett 1B M. Teixeira 2B C. Utley 3B H. Blalock SS M. Young OF J. Bay OF H. Matsui OF V. Wells Util T. Helton BN J. Thome BN C. Barmes BN B. Wilkerson BN R. Mackowiak Pitching SP J. Garland SP D. Haren RP T. Hoffman RP F. Cordero P J. Bonderman P J. Blanton P J. Valverde BN S. Kazmir Im usuing hte fantasy baseball 411 philopshy that pitching is not a need, hitting is a premium. Also that Closers are vailuable. That is pretty ridiculous. You've got 2 guys that shouldn't make it out of the first and 2 others that shouldn't last past the 2nd. Plus Helton and Thome for some depth. I'd trade one of those last two guys for one dependable ace-type pitcher. If they're going to ride your bench anyways, you might as well try to upgrade your team by trading them. Your staff would be pretty decent too if you do that. Going hitter heavy does generally increase your chances, but you still need at least some higher tier pitching, with an emphasis on strikeouts since anyone that is a safe bet for 200 is typically gone by the start of the 7th. I'd usually avoid taking closers early. I never take one before the 5th round, and even then it either has to be one of the top couple of guys or the pickings have to start getting slim. All but the elite ones are one category specialists. Even the better ones can't offer that much help in K's, ERA, and WHIP. It doesn't look like you did this time judging by who you have and the strength of your lineup. However, the only closers that are really worth picking in the 5th or 6th round unless there is a monster closer run are Rivera, Lidge, K-Rod, Wagner, Nathan, Street, and Ryan (and maybe Cordero, but personally I'd wait since this is only his second year as a closer and his team isn't very good). A starting pitcher is generally going to help your team more than a closer of the same caliber.

QUOTE(Chisoxfn @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 04:30 PM) Lets not forget that one of State's losses came to Iowa. Just had to throw Iowa in amongst all this ACC talk That must have been an ugly game to watch too. The final was 45-42. :headshake NC State shot 34%, Iowa shot 29.8%. They also combined for 41 turnovers. :puke

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 04:17 PM) From the data, UNC plays alot of average to good teams, while State plays a few great teams like Duke and GW, and then alot of bad teams, 11 of them. That doesn't really seem to be the case if you look at some of the other numbers. UNC is 1-2 against the RPI top 25, 3-1 against 26-50, and 7-2 against 51-100. NC State is 0-4 against the top 25, 3-1 against 26-50, and 7-1 against 51-100. Both have a loss against a sub-100 rated team. So after UNC plays Duke, that means they'll have only one more game against a team ranked 51-100 than NC State does. The major difference is that NC State is getting dragged down by the D II team they played (D I winning percentage is 56.2) and a couple of other dogs.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 04:03 PM) Ok, I'll break it down even further. NC State only plays Duke once this year, while UNC gets them twice. UNC's opponents all year long are 430-290 60%, while State's are 418-333 55%. Out of UNC's 26 games this year, only 5 teams have a losing record, compared to 11 teams on State's schedule. All I basically get out of that is that UNC's dog teams were little bit stronger than NC State's. Outside of the extra Duke game for UNC, they played basically the same quality and quantity of real opponents, and the only real difference in record is that UNC nailed them head to head. I really don't see why one of them should be projected as a #3 seed while the other is all the way down as a #6. That's more of an issue that I have with using mathematical formulas for strength of schedule and RPI ratings than anything else. I don't see UNC's schedule as that much harder, and I really don't see the massive difference between playing Gardner Webb and playing the Citadel. Either way, a team with any real hope of making noise in the tourney shoudn't have any kind of trouble beating those teams. I don't think that playing moderately more dangerous teams that really aren't a threat should result in a 40-place difference in strength of schedule, and a corresponding 3-seed difference in the tournament.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 12:56 PM) UNC has faced 7 teams out of conference with 16 or more wins on the year, compared to 4 for NC State. NC State's first 5 wins came against teams that are a combined 53-89 on the year, 37% win percentage. I didn't say they weren't better, I just don't think they're that much better. Franky, I don't think either team's schedule is that impressive. I don't like looking just at records because 16 wins isn't necessarily equal depending on what conference you're in. Both played 3 probable tourney teams and a lot of dogs. RPI takes into account the quality of the cupcake teams they face. I don't really care about that unless you lost to them. I don't really see beating the 4th place Atlantic Sun team or the 3rd place Southern League as a real asset to a top-3 team from a power conference. I think they're very similar when you look at the two teams, so I don't see why they're that far apart. I could understand about 10 spots, but any more than that just doesn't make much sense to me.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 12:29 PM) Iowa will be tough if they don't get upset in the first round. I could very easily see them getting 12-5'd. I can also see them being an elite 8 team. I apparently also jogged everyone's memories that OSU is pretty good. LOL. They're going to have to beat a #1 or a #2 seed to make it to the Elite 8. I don't see that happening. Their offensive production is just so inconsistent, I have a hard time believing that they'll beat someone good.

QUOTE(Heads22 @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 12:26 PM) I've liked the idea of keeping 2 batters, 2 pitchers, and one pitcher or batter of your choice. Personally, I don't like requiring people to keep two pitchers for three reasons: 1) pitchers get hurt at a much higher frequency 2) even when healthy, their performances are a bit more inconsistent 3) you need more position players, so you should probably be keeping more of them Since I've already seen some enthusiasm for that however, that's probably how I'm going to do it.

QUOTE(VenomSox @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 11:02 AM) So Vlad over Santana? Definitely. Vlad is a guy that can help you in 5 categories. He'll probably post something like 110-35-120-12-.325. That's pretty impressive across the board. Santana will give you good strikeout, ERA, and WHIP totals, but he might not give you that much in wins because of the Twins' anemic offense.

QUOTE(thedoctor @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 11:26 AM) you are correct, osu did not have a great non-con schedule. it was pathetic actually. their only real quality non-con win was a home w over lsu. I don't know, I just look at some of the RPI numbers, and I don't really see why OSU is that high, or why UNC is about 20 spots higher than NC State, or why Arizona, Wisconsin and Michigan are currently in the top 25 in the RPI. Any time you're assigning mathematic formulas to try to determine how good a sports team is, you're going to get some weird results. I prefer not to pay attention to those things, but since it seems to influence the tournament seeding I guess I have to.

QUOTE(Cuck the Fubs @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 02:10 AM) They have Adrian Beltre. This is still their potential: Beltre, Pujols, Soriano, Papi, and Tejada. Plus, with the pullout of Manny and Vlad, it opens up possibilites for more balance to the lineup with guys like Willy Taverez and Wily Mo Pena There's no conceivable way that losing Manny and Vlad makes your lineup better. Beltre was a one year wonder, he's not that good. Their lineup probably looks something like this: 1- Taveras, CF 2- Soriano, 2B (or probably Reyes on occasion) 3- Pujols, 1B 4- Ortiz, DH 5- Tejada, SS 6- Alou, LF 7- Beltre, 3B 8- Encarnacion/Sosa, RF (not sure who'll play there, but those 2 are on the roster.) 9- Olivo, C I'd much rather have the US lineup, which is probably going to look something like this: 1- Damon, LF 2- Jeter/Young, SS 3- A-Rod, 3B 4- Lee, 1B 5- Teixeira, DH 6- Griffey, RF 7- Wells, CF 8- Varitek, C 9- Utley/Young, 2B It's a lot more balanced, and when you add in the far superior pitching, the US appears to have a much better team.

QUOTE(aboz56 @ Mar 3, 2006 -> 10:08 AM) Ohio St moves into 4th in the RPI. (ahead of Memphis) IMO if they win out they sneak in for a #1 seed. Ouch, that seems out of place to me. I didn't think that their schedule/wins were that impressive, but I guess that's what the #1 conference does for you. Some of the numbers in the RPI don't make a lot of sense to me, which is why I typically don't pay too much attention to them. 3 of them are obviously locks, but I think it'll depend on who does what in the conference tourneys for the last spot. There doesn't seem to be a gimme pick for the 4th one.

I just realized that I contradicted my own argument in a way. I guess the major key is wait to see who is there before you start figuring out who you want. Don't get set on taking a power hitter and end up passing on Utley, or getting set on a speed guy and passing on Pedro. Just try to take the best player each time. It might even end up being Santana-Pedro-Halladay in the first three rounds. Granted I probably wouldn't take those 3 because my balance would be shot, but try to be flexible.