EVIL~! alkeiper

He got two outs and gave up a HR to a good power hitter. Even good pitchers give up runs. Before this, Hawkins had not allowed a run in his last five appearances. If you can find better closer, that's great. The problem is, I don't see who is around that is both better than Hawkins, and available. Instead of fretting about Hawkins, I would worry that the Cubs are going to overpay for a piece of crap like Jose Mesa. So here is a little game for all of you Cub fans. Come up with a reasonable trade proposal that would net your team the proven closer you need.

Like Wilt, Robertson and Russell, West accumulated points because of the high pace of games in his era. Every player on my list won at least one MVP award. West did not. I just can't see putting the fourth best player of that era on my list. Who is better? Tim Duncan? I didn't even try and rate Duncan, Garnett and Bryant among others because it seems premature. As for Robinson, he rates third all-time in Player Efficiency Rating, 5th in Player Wins, and 6th in Win Shares. I do not know how much stock to put in player wins and win shares as they are new statistics (and only available since 1978), but they are objective stats, and they rate Robinson highly. Defensively, Robinson won four selections to the All-Defense team. Since Robinson joined the team, the Spurs always ranked among the best defensive teams in the NBA. When Robinson missed all but six games in the 1997 season due to injury, the Spurs' record fell to 20-62. Robinson never got alot of press, but I am confident he was really this good. I think any Kobe/Shaq team is going to finish at least 8th, unless either suffers massive injuries. In any case, of course there are other changes besides Shaq, and they deserve mention. I would point out, however, that there are no examples of a Shaq team finishing below .500. Stockton would probably reach a top-20 list.

The team can win with Hawkins, but I'm not sure about Dusty.

He averaged 50 points a season because he took ten more shots a game than any player does in the NBA today. You have to understand, basketball did not have a shot clock in the 1960s. Teams did not pace themselves and set up plays. They took the ball, ran up the court, and took shots. Chamberlain's FG% that year was .506. That would not have ranked in the top five last year. Not even close. What made Chamberlain's season so great, besides the era? It was a great season, but it hardly ranks on another stratisphere beyond what players produce today. So Chamberlain dominated like no other, and Shaq was never dominant. The problem is that Chamberlain only won two NBA titles. It seems that teams found a way to beat Chamberlain. Shaq did dominate, and the Lakers seemed unbeatable for three years. Kobe contributed to that, but as we have seen this season, Kobe is not much on his own. And why the Jerry West love? I see nothing at all in his performance record to merit a top ten ranking.

A slump, combined with a slow trek downhill.

John Hollinger said it best before the season. The Hawks thought they could get better if they cleared out cap space, and thus dealt Abdur-Rahim and Ratliff. The problem is, they couldn't get players any better than those two. So the whole exercise is a wash.

Oscar I've addressed. Jerry West won one NBA title and never won an MVP award. Where is the evidence that he belongs among the top ten?

Robertson did win a title with the Bucks in '71, although Kareem was probably the star of that team. If I extended the list, Robertson would have ranked twelveth. My main concern with Robertson is the same I have with Bill Russell. He played in the formulative years of the NBA, and I doubt he would have dominated to that extent in today's era. The triple-double over a season is nice, but it comes from an era where teams raced down the court and hoisted shots. Teams in that year took on average 25 more shots a game than they do today. That is many, many more opportunities to grab points, rebounds and assists. Would Robertson repeat that today, in a different era and more competitive league? Or was that accomplishment a product of his time? More importantly, is it an indication of greatness, or a quirky statistic? The only things in which Robertson led the league in 1962 were assists. Robertson's a great player. If I extended this list, he likely would have ranked twelveth. But I just can't justify ranking him among the top ten. I did not intend to exclude the ABA, and Erving's three championships in the ABA put him on the list. I could easily swap him with Olajuwon or Moses Malone however. For all of Wilt's dominance, he collected two NBA titles. Shaq has three. And again, O'Neal plays in a much more advanced era. Chamberlain accumulated gaudy counting statistics because his era was condusive to doing so. Shaq dominates the game like no player has done in recent memory. He is the all-time leader in Player Efficiency Rating, and he has a few years left still. In 1992, the Orlando Magic compiled a 21-61 record. Shaq joined the team as a 20 year old, and the team improved to 41-41. In 1996, the Magic finished 60-22. Shaq left, and the Magic fell to 45-37 the next season. The 1997 Lakers improved three games when Shaq arrived, but finished 22 wins worse when Shaq departed. The Miami Heat improved 17 wins when Shaq arrived. That gives us five examples of Shaq leaving or joining a team. In four instances, he swung the team's win/loss record 15 wins or more.

The Athletics ink Bobby Crosby to a five-year deal, locking up his arbitration years. And the dream is dead, as Calvin Pickering is off to Omaha.

Off topic, but for those of you with ESPN classic, they are showing Dwight Muhammad Qawi vs. Evander Holyfield. Great, classic brawl.

Perez has always been an underrated platoon masher. And Jeter Ks in a CLUTCH~! situation.

To continue with the animated discussion in the NBA thread. I decided to do my own top 10, pretty much to let the you know what hit the fan... 1. Michael Jordan Sorry Ripper, but I just can't budge Jordan from this spot. Ranks among the top in virtually any advance metric, starred on six championship teams, and won five MVPs. 2. Shaquille O'Neal I'm going to catch a lot of flak for this. Shaq has simply made any team he has played on instant title contenders. He changed the game since his arrival, as any team chasing a title seems to NEED a big man to contain Shaq, whereas before they may not have been so inclined. Deserves more than the one MVP he has earned. 3. Wilt Chamberlain Simply the dominant player of his era. 4. Kareem Abdul-Jabbar Overlooked in the discussion of great NBA players. Won six NBA titles and six MVP awards. Also starred in Airplane. 5. Magic Johnson Premature retirement probably held him back a spot or two. Great all-around player. In regards to the previous discussion, I have to believe Magic could not have won five NBA titles without Abdul-Jabbar on his team. 6. David Robinson A great player, and a credit to the sport. Overlooked among great players, but if you look closely at the players and statistics, I think you will see he deserves to be here. 7. Larry Bird In the metrics, falls slightly short of Magic and Jordan. Still, a great player. 8. Bill Russell Won 11 titles, but did so when the league had eight teams for most of the Celtics' run, and still had just 14 the year Russell retired. Russell would not have won so many titles had he played in a more competitive era. Still, he was a great player, winning five MVP awards. 9. Karl Malone Peak value or career value? Malone did not dominate, but he was very good for a long, long time. 10. Julius Erving A popular player who helped introduce the slam dunk, won 3 championships and 4 MVP awards between the NBA and ABA. Honorable Mention: Hakeem Olajuwon Another dominant center, winning two NBA championships and an MVP award.

Goodness. Seems like only weeks ago that analysts were touting the Yankees' rotation as the best in the National League. If this were the 1880s and teams carried three pitchers all year, they'd be in good shape.

I understand. It's just that I don't see myself studying it, and there does not seem to be much value to it. Do people really need to read a list of trades to figure out that I tend to ass-rape my opponents when it comes to trading? As for notification, along with the transaction listing, we are sent an e-mail with each trade.

I saw J.J. Jurries play last week, for three games. He hit a home run the first night, but didn't really impress otherwise.

A few days. I just need to work out some details.

Do you really need to copy down straight trades of players? Seems like unnecessary work.

What have I told you guys about starting OaO threads?

I ran some correlation studies last year on run scoring. I don't have it handy, but I can give some rough numbers. For those of you unfamiliar with correlation, the scale runs from -1 to 1. 0 is no correlation whatseover. A figure of 0.3 indicates that some noticeable correlation exists between two strings. Batting average comes in at 0.75. OBP and slugging percentage, the twin towers of batting prowess, scored at 0.98 and 0.99 respectively, making them incredibly accurate statistics for estimating run production (OPS scores even higher). Productive outs scored slightly negative, but do not measure as a significant correlation. Interestingly, there was also no correlation between team STRIKEOUTS and runs scored. For those of you who'd rather skip the math, OBP and slugging percentage are good, while productive outs and strikeouts are negligable.

I got great enjoyment watching Bill Platschke STILL try to say he doesn't buy the Dodgers. Particularly after the sabermetric community picked the Dodgers to win the division, while "expert" baseball analysts like "Wrong Hole" Buster Olney pegged the Dodgers for 75-80 wins. Strummer said a few weeks ago he heard Chris Russo pick the Dodgers to win less than 80 games because of their lack of team chemestry. This team is a Moneyball hater's worst nightmare. A team that pissed away the concept of team chemestry and kept winning. A team that traded for a "platoon player" at first base and kept winning. A team that lost its "proven closer" and kept winning. A team that traded its "heart and soul" and kept winning. A team that decided to forego defense in favor of offense at second base, and kept winning. A team that lacked a number one starter, and kept winning. A team that kept a supposed "clubhouse cancer" in Milton Bradley, and kept winning. I don't gloat often, but I am doing it now. Myself and a lot of other nerds with computers said the Dodgers were a force, while idiot writers like Bill Platscke, T.J. Simers, and Buster Olney dismissed the Dodgers off-hand. And they can choke on this one. The Giants are not competing without Barry Bonds. The Padres are weak without Khalil Greene for a month. The Dodgers are going to win this division. And if the Phillies do not reach the Series, I hope its Oakland/LA just so I can watch heads explode.

Yes. They're very informative, particularly when Meltzer delves into wrestling history.

I'll admit it. I laughed.

Because where a guy sits is a true sign of his testament, character, and reliability? If the blithering talk show idiots hasn't gotten a hold of it, it would be a non-story.

Did Nomar shoot a family member of yours? Or was he really THAT much of a prick in Boston? Agreed. He might have been moody, but he was certainly not an asshole.

Cleveland is up by 15, while New Jersey is down 11 at the half. The Sixers are cruising to victory. If the Sixers win and Pacers lose, do the Sixers get the 6th seed?