chw42

QUOTE (BigSqwert @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 11:11 AM) My goodness. Reading Oney Guillen on twitter is like reading something from an idiotic 13 year old. His dad doesn't act that much older.

QUOTE (Quinarvy @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 03:27 AM) I love the move. Sports Champions is mad fun. NBA 2k11 is...confusing. Have yet to figure out how to play that with the move. Resident Evil 5 is fun with it if you have a gun controller. Have yet to try Tiger Woods with it. I really wish the Show had move controls for all hitting, not just HRD. HRD is also in 3D. 3D plus Move seems kinda cool.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 10:13 AM) I figured it was a number of things, but I also figured that somewhere in there it was projecting worse years from a number of our starters, which I wouldn't buy, and you've confirmed that. When you consider that Danks and Floyd were 4+ WAR pitchers last year, I'm not sure I buy the projections either. But they're more or less base line projections, something that's safe. The three systems I used aren't the best. When ZiPS and Marcel come out, I think it'll be a little clearer.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 10:02 AM) I think we all kinda owe LeBron at least a semi-apology. The Cavs are 1-18 since December 2nd. They are f***ing awful. My goodness. I don't owe LeBron jack.

QUOTE (Balta1701 @ Jan 10, 2011 -> 10:04 AM) Can you be more specific as to which spots we've downgraded @? The projection systems don't like any of the Sox starters. I think they're probably the most pessimistic projections I looked at. They thought all the starters were going to sport FIPs around 4. Which I find kind of unrealistic since Floyd has been around the 3.5 range the past two years. I can see it for Danks and Jackson, but those are probably the base projections. Danks had one bad year FIP-wise and that was 09. Jackson's probably going to end up in the high 3s. I can definitely agree with Buehrle's projection though. They also lose 1.5 WAR in Putz and replace him with Crain, who is at .7 WAR. Thornton's not projected to be a 2 WAR pitcher like he was last year. Jenks also had an uncharacteristically high WAR despite being bad. This is where bWAR and fWAR differ since one looks at FIP and the other looks at ERA. Also, you can add in a possible regression for Sergio Santos. It's not huge losses across the board, but these things add up.

bWAR is very different than FIP-based WAR. They don't use FIP, they use a method of taking ERA and adjusting it to the team's defense. That said, the White Sox rotation last season was 1st in fWAR, which uses FIP. The fact that the Sox pitch in a park with a 105 park factor for pitchers raises their value considerably. I've ran the entire projected Sox staff's CAIRO, Bill James, and Fan projections through this program I made. This is what came out. The program is not 100% accurate since there are so many dynamic variables in calculating WAR. But I find the error to be around .3 WAR at most. 20 WAR isn't bad, but it's a 5 WAR downgrade from last season.

This thread:

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:48 PM) Hey, I'm not trying to rain on your parade. I hope we kick their ass too. But it seems to me you're trying to say we can just run the ball against them and we'll win. It's just not anywhere near that simple. If they run the ball well, of course they'll have a good chance to win. Then you'll have to lock it down in other areas too obviously. But offensively, if they can get enough pressure off of Cutler and make the Seahawks guess on defense, I think this offense will do their part. We've all seen what Jay Cutler can do when he is given time and that's what a good running game can give Cutler. I'm not saying I'm not even going to watch the game and just call it a win or anything. I'm just saying the Bears should have a really good chance to win against the Seahawks.

QUOTE (JPN366 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:44 PM) Yeah, that's what got the Saints. They didn't run enough, Seattle was only rushing 3 and dropping everybody else into coverage. They really didn't have the weapons to run either. Ivory and Thomas going on IR really hurt them. Julius Jones and Reggie Bush aren't the best running backs around.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 10:16 PM) I couldn't disagree more. What scheme change are you talking about? The realization that it helps your offensive line if you run the ball more? What I have seen is a pattern. When teams are able to slow down the Bears running game, the Bears get forced into 3rd and longs, and then the blitzes come, and Cutler panics. When the Bears are able to run the ball effectively, they keep 2nd and 3rd down manageable, the downs are not so clearly passing downs or passing plays that take a long time to develop, and our offense is able to function and sometimes even flourish, because they do have some talent. But I haven't seen a whole lot that shows that some major shift has been made in terms of a game plan or a philosophy, other than trying to commit to the running game more. We have seen the collapses as late as in the New England game and the game last week against the Packers. What happened to our scheme then? They ran the ball a lot less last week against Green Bay. I think the ratio was like 40 to 20 or something along those lines. Forte ran the ball very well too. I don't know what Martz was really trying to do. The key to the Bears' success on offense is definitely the running game. If you look at Forte's numbers since the bye, they look a lot better: Before bye: 90 attempts, 352 yards, 3.9 yards/attempt, 12.9 attempts/game. If you were to take away Forte's 22 rush 166 yard game against Carolina, he'd be averaging 2.7 yards per carry and 11 carries per game. That's absolutely atrocious. After bye: 147 attempts, 717 yards, 4.9 yards/attempt, 16.3 attempts/game. Forte only had one really bad game since the bye and that was against New England. The increase in Forte's effectiveness could be affected by a couple of things, but most notably, it could mean better run blocking and a healthier Forte (I haven't seen him run this well since his rookie year). Of course, it also doesn't hurt that he is getting the ball more every game. So if Seattle was actually good at stopping the run, which they are not, I'd be concerned. Right now, I'm feeling pretty good about next Sunday.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 08:56 PM) But they were already shut down by this defense. How is it so easy to ignore that? And what about the Redskins? What was their defense ranked in EPA (Damn you for bringing advanced metrics to football now, you bastard! The Bears ran the ball 14 times that game. Having no rushing attack absolutely screwed that o-line because it made the offense so predictable. It's probably not going to be the same thing this time around. As for that Redskins the game, the Bears moved the ball decently. They just choked when they got into the red zone and Cutler got turnover-happy. Both of the games are before the scheme changes and I think it's pretty easy to see that the Bears from after that point are much different performance-wise.

QUOTE (Rowand44 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 08:55 PM) Fangraphs does football too? I wish football was as easy to measure as baseball.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 08:19 PM) I don't have an issue with any of that. But where have you been all season? Have you not seen the games where we can't protect the quarterback enough to barely keep him alive, yet alone execute an offense? I'm just not sure how anyone could be confident when it is evident in certain games after about 6 plays that the Bears are going to be absolutely incapable of scoring or running a decent offense. I've seen them all. If they were going up against a better defense, I would be concerned. But this is a Seahawks team that was 26th in defensive EPA (expected points added). They're 27th in defensive passing EPA and 20th in defensive running EPA. If you look at the traditional yards/game stats, you'll get similar results. I'm not all that concerned that they might overwhelm our crappy o-line. Because they haven't really overwhelmed anyone all season.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 08:08 PM) I agree. I'm sort of surprised by the arrogance shown in general by Bears fans over this matchup. First of all, the Seahawks already came in to Soldier Field once and beat the Bears. The Bears scored a td on their opening drive, and returned a punt for a td at the end of the game, but the other 52 minutes of the game was dominated by the Seahawks, 23-6. Secondly, the Bears, because of their offensive line woes, are capable of being rendered just about the worst team in the NFL at any given time. We've seen this happen against the Giants, the Redskins, the Patriots and the Packers. You never really can be sure which team is going to show up on any given day. Any team can lose to any other team in the NFL on any given day, but I don't know if I have ever seen a team with such a huge range of potential performance as this Bears team. They can look absolutely putrid one game and fairly incredible the next. I don't know about you guys, but I am always afraid that the putrid Bears are going to show up. Finally, I've seen some people argue that this is "a different Bears team" now than the one that the Seahawks beat back on October 17. Well, maybe it is. But maybe this is a different Seahawks team than the one that struggled late in the regular season? Maybe this is more like the team that started off the year 4-2 with quality wins over the Bears and the Chargers... I'm not saying the Bears shouldn't be favored, because they will be, my guess is by 6 points or so, but this is no easy game. This is no just show up and win. Depending on which Bears team comes to play Sunday, I wouldn't even be shocked if the Seahawks beat the Bears handily. I don't want it to happen, and the Bears might expose the Seahawks and make it a bit of a laugher, but that's exactly it, the range of possibilities is huge any time this Bears team steps on the field. That doesn't exactly make me brimming with confidence. Bears played that game in Week 6 without Briggs. You can say the Bears have changed and you can also say how the Seahawks have changed since winning that last game of the season. The Bears are different now due to scheme changes. The talent is more or less the same. The Seahawks are more or less playing out of their minds and have had the luxury of home field advantage. And let's just say it's some of the best home field advantage in all of football. At some point, talent will trump momentum or motivation and I'd say it's pretty safe to say the Bears are the more talented team. But it's the NFL, so who knows?

http://realgm.com/src_wiretap_archives/710...r_taking_shape/ Holy crap. 15 players?

QUOTE (WHarris1 @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 12:53 PM) ^^. Yup, got it off Amazon. Easily worth the 30. It's 21 used from Amazon Warehouse. I thought about it, but then said no and got NBA Street Homecourt instead for $11.

QUOTE (StrangeSox @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 07:33 PM) The Bears really have gotten a ton of breaks this year. I'd rather be lucky than good.

Seahawks' record on the road by year since Qwest Field's opening. 2010: 2-6 2009: 1-7 2008: 2-6 2007: 3-5 (this was when they won 10 games) 2006: 4-4 (finished with 9 wins, lost to Bears in NFC Divisional Round) 2005: 5-3 (finished with 13 wins, went to SB) 2004: 4-4 (finished with 9 wins) 2003: 2-6 (finished with 10 wins) 2002: 4-4 Away record since Qwest Field's opening: 27-45 Home record since Qwest Field's opening: 50-22 Away record in past three years: 5-19

What an ending. I don't want to jinx it or anything, but it looks like we're going to the NFC Championship Game.

Come on Green Bay, hold on here.

QUOTE (GoodAsGould @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 06:01 PM) First one was against a strong wind and over 40 yards so I don't blame him, that 2nd miss definitely all on him though and might of cost his team a chance of winning. Yeah, the first one wasn't a chip shot at all. But it was definitely make-able.

Definitely a bad day for Akers. Philly would be actually in this game had he been able to hit two make-able field goals.

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:27 PM) That's just a loser attitude [not saying you're a loser, obviously]. I'll never except the notion that because just about all of our first round picks have sucked the last decade that it would be acceptable if Sale turned into nothing more than a dominant reliever. Look all around baseball. There's a lot more efficient ways to acquire dominant relievers or closers than to invest pre-mid first round picks on them. You've seen how all these lengthy contracts are given out to relievers this year. A good reliever usually ends up producing less value than what he is paid on the open market. It wouldn't be the worst idea to groom relievers from the draft. Now granted, they probably shouldn't be the 14th pick in any draft, but it's not the end of the world if you get 1.5 WAR a year from that pick for 6 years and pay him somewhere around $25 million throughout those years. Now of course, I would want Sale to be a starter since that maximizes his value and that is the ultimate point. However, you also have to consider his physical condition. I think the case with Sale is a little different than with other guys like Papelbon or Chamberlain. Those guys were physically ready to handle 200 innings. Chris Sale looks like he has anorexia. It wouldn't hurt to ease him into the Majors. He pitched 23 innings last year. I bet those 23 innings took more of a toll on him than any other 23 innings he's pitched in his career. ML innings put extra stress on the arm, just look at what happened to Strasburg. He pitched for years without arm problems, but couldn't handle 75 innings in the Majors before getting hurt. I'm kind of in between. I wouldn't mind it if he started and I wouldn't mind it if he relieved. However, I think the latter option is the safer route in the long run and it also does stabilize the bullpen a lot more in the short term.

QUOTE (iamshack @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:25 PM) Ok Bears. Take note of this, please. Just curious, what's everyone's opinion of Tim Jennings this year?

QUOTE (Jordan4life @ Jan 9, 2011 -> 02:03 PM) What kinda excuse is that? Because most of our first round picks have sucked that it would be OK if Sale turned into a great set-up man or closer? We may as well just forfeit all of our first-round picks from here on out. Look at what 3E8 posted. It's not just us, but it's been more of the case with this team since Kenny took over.