ZoomSlowik

I'd also love to join a keeper is someone dropped out.

I just realized, I'm going to have to change a couple of my Yahoo! ID's. One of them was Ordonez for MVP, another was Ordonez for MVP 30. :banghead

QUOTE(Rex Hudler @ Feb 12, 2005 -> 05:18 PM) Well okay, you got me. Maris did indeed play in those extra 5 games (I looked at the wrong year) and Ruth did not have 705 plate appearances. He had 691 to Maris 698. Still hardly a major difference. I don't think those numbers change the point. Regardless of the number of at bats, when Maris played in game number 151, which was the most that Ruth could have possibly played in, Maris did not have 60 homeruns. Those extra games made a major difference.

QUOTE(qwerty @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 09:55 PM) Babe ruth for me. Agreed. The guy was hungover half the time, and it still took 3 guys on the juice 70 years later to hit 60 homeruns faster than he did. I'm not a fan of praising Maris, he got an extra 10 games to try to break the record in.

I definitely want in on a daily head-to-head Live draft league. I'm a new to the Soxtalk league but I'd love to get in a league with some veterans.

I highly doubt he is going to end up resigning with the Twins. If Pavano gets 10 mil a year, this guy can rape some team. A left-handed starter with a mid 90's fastball and a wicked change? If he does anywhere near as well as he did this year I'd be shocked if he got less than $14 mil a year. He'll end up with whoever throws the most money at him, which will probably come down to the Yankees, Red Sox, Rangers, Houston and Baltimore (luckily the Cubs are going to have their own problems with Prior and Zambrano in the near future).

QUOTE(CWSGuy406 @ Feb 10, 2005 -> 04:37 AM) As an objective fan of a team who has no aspirations whatsoever (Northwestern :banghead ), I'll say this in regards to the UNC/Duke game: -Nelson played very, very well off the bench for Duke. -Ewing is garbage. He gets hot and buries a couple of tres, but other than that, he was terrible. He was terrible against Maryland, too. -Felton, what the hell was that at the end??? On a more positive note, I think UNC should absolutely dominate when the game is @ UNC (they do play at UNC, correct?). What was UNC from the line -- 10/24? And aren't they one of the best free throw shooting teams in the ACC? I think you can chalk up this win, in a huge part, due to the Cameron Crazies, but that's JMHO. Haha, fellow suffering NU fan! We got a win against Minnesota tonight though. As for UNC/Duke, UNC played a really sloppy game and got some terrible outside shooting and still only lost by 1 in Cameron Indoor Stadium. McCants missed numerous open 3's, which is not like him, and as Palehose said, Jawad Williams was non-existent (I was pro-Heels, but seriously, does Jawad forget how to play after game #20? He's been off for a few games now, and I remember him doing that last year too). I still think UNC is going to be a monster in the tourney, and that they are going to smoke Duke at Chapel Hill. Another issue though, is it just me, or was that clock a little quick at the end? I've only seen it about twice, but it looked like it should have been UNC ball with at least .06 left. I know they choked with a lot more than that, but who knows what kind of miracle could have happened.

Sloppy half by UNC. Lots of turnovers and some poor shooting, but they're still only down 7 at Cameron. Both teams are playing some pretty good D, I'm especially impressed with UNC's work on Redick, he only got one good look the whole half (hit another 3 that was out in the parking lot).

I'm taking UNC by 12, 84-72. Williams is going to have a tough time against May and the Williams boys, which will make it tough for Duke. The only way I see Duke coming out ahead is if Redick and Ewing both come up with 20 point plus performances.

You'd think that the Cubs would want to hang on to one of their few capable arms in the bullpen considering their situation, but apparently not... I know he's a headcase, but Jesus, that pen is actually getting worse.

That thing is really off. There is no way in hell the Royals will win 80 games. That's what irked me the most. And if Podsednik led the league in hitting, how did we only end up with 74 wins? Did our pitching staff implode?

I'll admit I don't have a lot of experience with auction leagues, but I read a lot of stuff and play a lot of fantasy baseball. You're getting pretty good value on most of your guys based on the material I've seen, but you're a bit high on RJ. 40 is about the most I ever see on a player, and almost never over 35 on a pitcher (although this is for a 260 cap with fewer positions). This is especially true since you are keeping 4 other pitchers. I'd let him go and try to use the money saved on a stud infielder, preferrably with some speed. However if you really want to keep him and think he would go higher, don't let me stop you. Garcia, Buehrle and Matsui are all dead on. Personally I might let Edmonds go, he's coming off a better season than he normally has and he was healthy for once. One other thing to consider is that going with a ton of pitchers is a risky proposition, it's usually a better idea to load up on position players. Do you have any other potential position keepers, or closers with any ability? If you could grab someone like Jose Reyes or Jimmy Rollins or Michael Young, or Lidge or K-rod for a decent price, that would be a solid move.

I suck. I definitely need to watch more movies. I only got like 18, and have no clue on several of them.

I do find it funny that people were talking all this s*** about how Konerko/Lee wouldn't cut it as the centerpiece, and then he trades Hudson for a 26 year old rookie that had about 250 at bats, a pitcher with good stuff that seems to be ending up as a setup guy, and a very good prospect. We definitely could have done better than that, but apparently King Billy didn't like our prospects. Anyway, this deal is long dead. Now I can just laugh at how Beane is slowly slipping as a GM.

QUOTE(Palehosefan @ Feb 5, 2005 -> 11:51 PM) I just saw a hilarious stat. JJ Redick leads the nation in least fouls per minutes played. Apparently he gets a foul called on him once every 41 minutes of play. That leads the nation by a wide margin. Compare that to the rest of the ACC guards, even on his team, like Ewing, McCants, Paul, Gray all average 1 foul for about every 9 minutes of play. Does anyone else find that odd that a guy can play in an aggressive man-to-man defense that Duke plays and foul ONCE not even every game? I got a pretty good theory as to why he doesn't foul. I'm going to admit that I don't pay enough attention to this whenever I watch a Duke game to verify it, but judging from their lineup and what I have seen, I think it is fairly accurate. Reddick simply doesn't play the same harrassing defense that is typical of Duke. Look at Dockery and Ewing. They get much more fouls and have twice as many steals per game. They play some tough defense, but I don't see myself saying the same thing about Reddick. Another factor is the lineups of other teams. Very few teams have three quality perimeter players that one has to guard, allowing Duke to put Dockery and Ewing on the tougher assignments while putting Reddick on a less demanding assignment. For instance, you wouldn't see him matched up against Chris Paul or Justin Gray, or against John Gilchrist or Chris McCray, at least if Coach K has a choice in the matter. Because this other option does not have the ball in his hands as much and is not as big a part of the other team's offense, there are not as many opportunities to commit fouls. I'm going to try to watch this in the upcoming North Carolina game. I'd be shocked if he sees much time guarding Felton or McCants. I would expect he gets Manuel or Scott barring foul trouble for the other two Duke guards.

QUOTE(Texsox @ Feb 6, 2005 -> 06:35 AM) It is definitely illegal to gamble in the US. Enforcement is next to impossible, so it goes on. I am amazed that they allow advertisements to be aired. I was reading an article that the government is trying to stop advertising from those sites (I think it was in Business Week, way too lazy to look it up right now). They sent one of the major publishers a notice or something telling them that if they continue running ads for online gaming/gambling sights that major litigation would follow. Basically they dropped the ads because it would cost them a ton more in court win or lose than they would gain in advertising. Online gambling is definitely illegal in the U.S. Another reason that these sights are so prominent is that the U.S. can't really do anything about the sites that are out of the country. The article mentioned that they were trying to make life for any U.S. citizens involved with running them miserable, and trying to stop U.S. residents from using them. However, the latter is extremely difficult to enforce, and the former only gets you so far. Look at music downloading as an example. There are reputable sites that can be trusted, but know that it is definitely against the law unless you go to Vegas. Look in the ESPN article about Super Bowl bets (probably in the page 2 section on the main page) for suggestions on where to place bets at.

I know what you mean on retiring with the same team, I hate seeing guys hang on for a couple more years on other teams, like Smith on the Cardinals, Jordan on the Wizards, Namath on the Rams, Montana on the Chiefs, ect. The list just keeps going. By the way, awesome Jordan sig Goldmember.

Palehose, I like your first two ideas. I never thought of how messy it would be if you could trade all of your 50 rounds worth of picks. I agree on the age limit thing, I think if you are good enough to cut it, you should be able to play. However, I think guys need to have an option if something goes wrong, IE Cisse and Austin. The NBDL, ABA,and Europe don't seem to cut it under their current setup, and in a lot of cases I think that if they had space for them they'd keep guys around. Plus guys like Darco that get picked early but aren't ready to contribute could get some playing time.

Sorry if someone did this before, but I think it is an interesting topic. Here's my list: -Reinstate Shoeless Joe Jackson and Buck Weaver, since their involvement in the fix was a little more questionable. Also, put Pete Rose on the Hall of Fame ballot, although all other parts of his baseball ban would remain intact. -Move the 3-point line in college basketball back to the international distance. The 3 has become way too big a factor, and everyone on the court will shoot them. Ideally with the new distance coaches would stop giving mediocre shooters the green light, making the game look a little more like the pros. -Make the NBDL a full minor leagues for the NBA, allowing them to retain the rights of young players that are not ready while also allowing them to get some playing time while getting paid. A rule would be included to prevent teams from sending 3 year veterans to the minors without their consent. -Allow major league teams to trade their picks in the MLB draft to help small market teams avoid getting hurt by signability issues -Create a salary cap system in MLB. However, I don't want it to look exactly like the NFL cap system (see next points). There would be a 100 mil max cap and a 40 mil minimum. If this causes some teams to be financially unfeasible to run, they will be dropped from the league. Also, a rule should be included stating that homegrown players will have only a portion of their salary count against the cap, allowing them to retain players that they drafted and developed. -Create a similar rule in the NFL, allowing teams to retain players that they drafted at a lower cap hit. Player movement is disturbingly high in my opinion, and teams should be able to keep players that have been key members of their franchise instead of being forced to release them when they become older and less effective. -NFL contracts will be at least partially guaranteed. This will make signing bonuses less crucial and prevent teams from backloading contracts and cutting the player when they start counting against the cap too much. -Several teams will be eliminated from the NHL. The have simply overexpanded, and the league will have fewer teams to split revenue between. To compensate for this loss of jobs, a more conservative luxary tax system will be put in place than the owners are demanding. -Create a tiered entry system into the World Series of Poker (for the record, I don't consider poker a sport, but I really would like to see this happen). Previous winners and top ranked pros will receive a bye to at least day two, maybe day three. This will create more clashes between top players and limit some of the Cinderella stories that seem to have overrun the tournament.

I'd do a prediction for the Bears with full research, but my problem with that is that I would be torn between what I want them to do and what I think they will do. For instance, I would want them to add Walter Jones, but I really don't think they will go that route, especially if he gets the franchise tag.

I don't know about Portis. I personally don't think there is any chance he plays until he's 35. But if he runs more like he did in his first two years, he might have a shot. If he plays until he's 32, he'd need to average about 1550 a year. That's a lot to ask, but if he plays a little longer than that or puts up a couple of 1700 or 1800 yard seasons in the near future, he might have a shot. If I absolutely had to pick a current player, I'd take Tomlinson. If he plays until 32 like I picked for Portis, he'd need a whopping 1780 per year. However, I have more faith in him playing until about 34, and he seems to be a little more durable than Portis. If he did that, it would be a much more reachable 1384, and I have faith that he can put up a few monster years. It's still going to be really tough though. I think the eventual answer will be that the NFL eventually has to let underclassmen in, which pushes up the timetable a little. I think if they let someone like Adrian Peterson in this year (I'm not saying he'd do it, I'm just saying it would have to be a freshman phenom that would start), that would make life easier. If someone can get in the league at 20, then they could get to 15000 yards at 30 if they kick some ass, making it more reachable.

Just correcting a couple of inaccuracies... Rodman was never an All-Star when he was with the Bulls. In fact, while they were winning championships, Jordan and Pippen were the only Bulls to play in the All-Star game, the latter not even making it every year (by some miracle B.J. Armstrong and Horace Grant made it in 1994 when Michael was playing baseball). Technically he did not win a playoff series before Pippen and Grant came (a lot of teams would have lost to those Celtics a couple of times during that period), but I doubt that Pippen really made that much of an impact in the 88 playoffs when they did beat the Hawks. He averaged all of 7.8 points per game. Plus, the Bulls did not have the best record in the league for their whole dynasty, they didn't have homecourt advantage in several of their series, meaning they weren't the BEST team in the league every year. Even assuming they were, those 6 years do not make up half of Michael's career as you claimed. Plus the Cowboys were good for more than just those years they won the title. Either way, there is a major difference between perrennial All-stars and decent players that made it once or twice. Every good team is going to have some solid role players, but not every team puts half their offense in the Pro-Bowl (Aikman, Irvin, Smith, Williams, Newton adds up to 5, and they had other linemen), or has a lineup full of hall of famers like the Celtics. As for calling Rodman the best PF in the league at the time, that's just highly inaccurate. Malone and Barkley were not far behind in terms of quality rebounding and defense, and could actually score. Pippen wasn't the best early in his career either, there was a guy named Larry Bird that was still doing pretty well during those couple of years it took Pippen to really reach his peak. As for who meant more to the Cowboys, it's hard to say because neither missed more than about 4 games at any one time. That's not really a good sample size. As for claiming I arbitrarily dislike Smith, I've provided numerous reasons why I feel that he is not as good as the big 3.

I forgot the touchdown's in a season, didn't know about the carries although I should have figured it out. Most of those other things don't really qualify as "records" persay. Fastest to something isn't really a record in team sport's terms, and as you said, a lot of that was 2,3,4. Also, those playoff records are based in large part on number of opportunities in the playoffs, which were much more plentiful for that loaded Cowboys team. Brown didn't play in the Super Bowl Era, Payton's Bears only had two worthy teams, and Sanders only had a couple of playoff games also. Yes, he's done some impressive things, but if I wanted to I could do the same thing with a lot of players. Look, Smith played until he was 35, even though he knew that he wasn't the same player. That has nothing to do with durability, that's everything to so with their own desires for life. Obviously he wanted to keep playing. Brown and Payton both went out with their titles and records, Sanders got sick of playing for a floundering franchise that wasn't doing anything to win. If Smith wants to play those extra basically meaningless seasons, that's his perogative, but I don't really call that a major accomplishment. In my book longevity is nowhere near as big a factor in determining a player's greatness as his brilliance during his prime. Emmitt is more impressive in the first area than the other when comparing the truly great backs. There's a world of difference between Jordan and Smith. Jordan was by far the best player on his team. You could make a legitimate argument that Emmitt was behind Aikman, at least in terms of importance to the team (Aikman doesn't compare as well to other QB's on paper however). That offense was also filled with perennial Pro-Bowlers all over the field in Aikman, Irvin, Newton, Williams, and a couple of other linemen during his time whose names escape me. Jordan's teams were basically Jordan until Pippen arrived. There was no flood of All-stars on those teams. Grant, Rodman, and Kukoc were decent, but were role players more than anything. More importantly, Jordan's fame is not based on a career record or two. His body of work is simply overwhelming, and he also happens to own the career scoring average record, not the more questionable most points record that is held by another guy that stuck around forever, Kareem Abdul-Jabbar. It's obvious that neither of us are doing anything to convince the other, so I'm planning on stopping here.

How does 2 records equal virtually every record in the book? He clearly doesn't have the record for yards per game or yards per carry as I illustrated. Rose and Smith are similar because they played far more games than their peers at the position and own a career record in that area. I'll agree Emmitt was solid and deserves credit, but I think the long time that he played skews some people's opinion of how good he really was. As for other backs, take a look at Eric Dickerson's career numbers. His per game rushing averages are very similar to Walter Payton's, but he doesn't get as much pub because he wasn't on stellar teams. I'm also a big Sayers fan, but injuries obviously stunted his career, so we'll never know how good he really was. I don't have a problem with Emmitt personally, I just have a problem with over-glorifying one or two career records of a guy that played for a really long time on excellent teams for most of their career like Emmitt and Rose. I also throw Ryan in that group even though his teams weren't good because he just played forever. I'm also not a huge Bill Russell fan. Yes, he has the rings, but he often overshadows Chamberlain's dominance because of the great teams he played on. I'm confident he'd be considered nowhere near the best center ever if the Hawks hadn't traded him to the Celtics. Yes, these were great players that belong in the HOF but I don't think it's right to say that a player is better than their predecessors because they broke their records without digging deeper into what they have done.

Number of season's played is a poor measure for how much the person actually played. All things are not equal in that comparison. Brown played in an era where the league played 12 and 14 game seasons, and so did Walter for his first 3 years. Walter also played in a strike shortened 1982 season. Emmitt was a very good back, but in an average game he produced quite a bit less than the other three, touchdowns notwithstanding. As I said before his team helped a bit with that. The writer of that article likes to compare career numbers, but that can be misleading. Do we really think that Pete Rose is the best hitter ever because he has the hits record, or is it more likely that we would pick Ty Cobb because of his career batting average ? Remember that none of these players missed large portions of time because of injury when looking at the numbers. games /yards per game /TD's per game /Rec YD per game /YPC Emmitt 226 /81.21 /.725 /14.26 /4.2 Brown 118 /104.33 /.898 /21.17 /5.2 Payton 190 /88.03 /.579 /23.88 /4.4 Sanders 153 /99.79 /.647 /19.09 /5.0 Also, rushing for nearly 1,000 yards this past year doesn't really mean anything. Basically any starting RB that is healthy the whole year gets it unless they are horrendous. 18 RB's did it this year, and several others were close, including Michael Vick. One only needs to rush for a little over 60 yards per game to reach it. Plus that 3.5 yards per carry wasn't all that impressive. Emmitt clearly wasn't himself for those last few years.