EVIL~! alkeiper

Wouldn't the 1987 World Series be the reason for that? That's makes sense, did Jack Buck do the radio for the 87 World Series? I'm not sure, but he did do national radio frequently at the time. Also remember that he was the Cards' radio announcer at the time, so he doubtless announced it for someone.

I read the article, and it is an interesting read. Personally, I think the best method is the integration of good scouting and good statistical work. Scouts catch the things the stats miss, and vice versa. A good organization gathers as much evidence as possible.

Wouldn't the 1987 World Series be the reason for that?

I think Hunter is a legitimately good glove man. Steve Finley, however, is just living off his reputation.

Yes, but they still have to replace them, and their farm does not look promising.

I doubt it. Pierre would be a very nice pickup for most teams, but it seems like faulty strategy to wait a year on the chance that you can sign a different guy (its never a guarantee, even for the Yankees). It does help that Bernie Williams' contract is up after this season.

As for Damaramu and FM, I don't give a flying fuck who started it. Knock it off.

that's cause it's the pissed off Mike Cameron. And this is why they should have got Delgado instead. Cameron didn't really sound pissed, it just sounds like he wants to play center field. If he can, he should. Half of his value is that he's a terrific defensive player. There's little value for a right fielder with a good glove, but sub-par OBP. Given the need of the Houston Astros, I am sure there is a deal out there. I don't think he'll end up with the Astros. Most likely Arizona (for who?), Cubs, A's, or super longshots, the Yankees and the Red Sox. Cubs have Corey Patterson, A's have Mark Kotsay, and the Red Sox have Johnny Damon. For Cameron to earn his salary, he MUST play center field.

that's cause it's the pissed off Mike Cameron. And this is why they should have got Delgado instead. Cameron didn't really sound pissed, it just sounds like he wants to play center field. If he can, he should. Half of his value is that he's a terrific defensive player. There's little value for a right fielder with a good glove, but sub-par OBP. Given the need of the Houston Astros, I am sure there is a deal out there.

Schoeneweis is an odd signing, but he's posted good numbers as a reliever, the role the Blue Jays expect him to fill. Eric Hinske and Hillenbrand will likely form a first base platoon, but if Hinske doesn't rebound, I expect Hillenbrand might win the job outright.

Here's a similar question. Who visits the site, and who simply reads a column if they see an interesting one at the top of the forum?

Why can't the Baseball HoF adopt this philosophy a bit more? Then we'd have Jim Rice in the Hall, and not Don Sutton. [/hijack] The heck? Sutton is much better than Rice.

I've watched Iverson for years. He's not turnover prone. Like I've written many times before (even on TSM's main page), the list of league leaders in turnovers is entirely meaningless. If you look at the leaders, you will find a list of players among the best in basketball. Last year's leaders included Paul Pierce, Steve Francis, Lebron James, Stephon Marbury, Carmelo Anthony, and Zach Randolph. That doesn't make sense. You have to look at turnovers as a rate stat, alongside possessions. When you do that, the most turnover prone players appear to be backup centers. Clumsy big men who are in the NBA primarily because of their size. Now, which group is more indicative of turnover prone players? Iverson hoists some bad shots, and his shooting is not the best. But that's not his primary skill. The key of Iverson is that he has many secondary skills that make him a valuable player. He can create shots, he's quick, and he's the best ball handler I have ever seen. He takes alot of shots, because he can take shots that other players can not.

The weird thing is that the forecast is for 60 degrees Thursday, before it dups below 30 again for the rest of the week. We've had two deaths so far, from carbon monoxide poisoning. Its not so cold as its completely unbearable, but its rough.

I'm still at my girlfriend's. I called home today, and the power is STILL out.

I've refuted the turnover statistic before. Bryant and Iverson of course will rack up many turnovers, simply because they are the primary offensive options for their team. They turn the ball over often because they carry the ball often. If you view turnovers as a percentage of possessions, they do NOT turn the ball over more often than other players. In fact, they turn it over much less. As for shooting percentage, I cannot vouch for Bryant, but Iverson's shooting percentages hurts from the problems that, A. he is attempting to shoot the ball over players who are almost always talller, and B. he makes the shot at the end of the shot clock, that no one else can even attempt.

I first caught Tom's analysis last week. I'm sorry, but I don't see how anyone can draw substantial conclusions from that. Teams that have an opportunity to run the ball 30+ times a game are going to score alot of points, yes. Did they win because they rushed 30 times, or did they rush 30 times because they had more possessions? In addition, the study makes no account for how much the team benefits from the passing game. The data makes no account for passing. Tom's conclusions may be right, I don't know. But the data presented hardly qualifies as proof. And Tom, if you're reading this, I hope you view it as constructive critisism. I don't mean to demean your studies. I just think you can make them better.

Even from that table, my impression is that winning teams have great offenses, aside from a recent trend favoring defenses. I would blame that on the Baltimore Ravens of a few years ago. A team with a great defense would have a better shot at an upset, however, because a lower scoring game gives a better chance of an upset. One thing though that is usually missing from these things is pace. A team may have a low ranked offense and defense simply because they run the ball more often and eat clock. Their score would be lower, but they wouldn't necessarily be a weak offensive team. Some accounting for possessions needs to exist. Of course, I have no idea whether any of that is really true, but it's worth consideration.

And which team is putting Eric Milton on the mound again?

That statement is quite amusing. Really, it is. More and more, I think fans who buy into the idea that just because a player is flashy, and thus lack fundamentals and "team basketball", need to be slapped repeatedly with a rolled up newspaper.

Well, Gord Ash is gone, so the recovery process is in full swing. With the Blue Jays now owning the Skydome, we'll see if they can maximize their revenue potential. They do have an opportunity to grab a larger share of Canadian baseball fans, with the Expos out. I am guessing Beltran stays in center. I think it is a good idea, since Beltran will be around longer, and his fielding skills would erode in right field. Plus, Beltran is younger, so his fielding will decline slower.

I live two hours north of Philly, about have way between there and New York. I can't stand New York teams, so my geographical preferences fall to the Philly teams, the Flyers, Phillies, Eagles, and 76ers. I follow the Phils and Sixers more than the other two teams.

Of course the total value of the contract comes first. You're taking my comment too literally. I do find it amusing that a player such as Martinez is criticized for going with the Mets deal. First, Pedro was offered a MUCH better contract with the Mets. Second, why should a player feel any special loyalty to a team when the team can and should trade him when they can become better in the process? Third, rarely does a player have any special connection with his city, beyond finding his employment there. When you think about it, Boston suffered without a World Championship for 86 years. But hardly any of the players were involved with that. They grew up fans of other teams, who happened to play for the Sox when they won a title. I just think that all of us seek the best deal when we look for employment. Realistically, there is little difference between playing for one market or another. A shot at a World Championship? That can figure in, but who knows who really has a shot? Who ever thought that I-Rod was taking home a ring when he settled for Florida? The only difference in offers many times is the contract, and I do not blame the athletes one bit. Hell, if winning was all that mattered, how could you stop all the best free agents from signing with the same club?

Their chances look bleak, but no one knows what the future might bring. I have the feeling the Yankee dynasty will crumble within a few years. Remember the Blue Jays fared well in the AL East for a number of years.

No typo. Koch was dominant in previous years, before he sputtered in 2003. He struck out over a batter an inning last season. If he can harness his control, he can be an effective reliever again. EDIT: Ok, I see it now. Yes, that is a genuine typo.