EVIL~! alkeiper

But how do these events inconvenience the Yankees moreso than the Devil Rays?

It's not legitimate anyway, as the Yankees agreed to the time change, and its only a few hours difference anyway. It's a non-issue/

http://thesmartmarks.com/artman/publish/article_1552.shtml

Ok. The Yankees could take a forfeit, and then forfeit all gate receipts they would have received from the game. That's perhaps a cool million in lost gate receipts.

Opened and bumped for the purpose of maintaining our sanity.

Fair enough. But I don't want threads clogged with the same point over and over again. I'll reopen the Yankees thread for the purpose of bitching about the team. Otherwise it discourages other topics.

Also, keep in mind there will be a champions fantasy playoff league, consisting of the league winners. If one person wins two or more leagues, we'll go down the line of the runners up of the H2H league until we fill out the league. It'll be a 5x5 standard rotisserie league. I'll have more details closer to the end of the season.

Again, where is the statistical evidence, and why were the best players in the Olympics still NBA players? Why haven't these fundamentally lacking players committed more turnovers. Why has three point shooting percentage gotten better? Why hasn't free throw percentage dropped? Everyone always adds their assumptions of the current NBA game, but no one has any PROOF. I am not talking about shooting here. There is NOTHING in the stats I have seen to indicate a lack of fundamentals.

Playoffs begin tomorrow in the H2H league. I think I'm going to land in the top three, which would keep me away from the White Sux until the last week of the season.

Is anyone watching the Angels/Indians game? The way K-Rod blocked the plate is clearly against the rules, but its never enforced.

That Hustle films looks absolutely terrible. If they paint Paul Janszen as a sympathetic character, this film loses all crediblity. "Are you sure you want to do this?" Riiiiight. It's obvious where their source material is coming from, and it stinks to high heaven.

And besides, most of your observations are based on subjective evidence. If today's players can not shoot, why is three point percentage on the rise? Why hasn't free throw percentage dropped? I agree today's NBA needs improvement. But it is not the result of poor players.

There are more foreign players simply because the area is scouted more, and the areas are growing more interest in basketball. I wouldn't argue there is something different about what they are doing that makes them successful. I would point out that there are foreign players, like Dirk Nowitski, who lack certain skills (defense in this case). So foreign players do have their warts as well. Brent Barry, Peja Stojakovic, Steve Nash, Kyle Korver, Michael Redd, Erik Piatkowski, and several others. They are out there, if you know where to look.

But if players are so concerned with being flashy, why doesn't a fundamentally sound shooter come into the league and wipe the floor with them. Some NBA teams have read Moneyball. They're looking for the inefficiencies of the game. If the problem exists, why isn't it being exploited? Quite a few. You only have faith in Reggie Miller, but that's your opinion clouding your judgement. I am sure there are many bad shooters today. There were also bad shooters twenty years ago. There are some terrific shooters today.

So that's why you're voting for Gary Sheffield, who's taking the lovable loser Yankees to the postseason for the first time in 11 months? Or Manny Ramirez, who's playing for those lowly Red Sox? I think we need to see that Win Shares statistic posted again, Al. I honestly don't remember any specifics for the MVP contenders. The top 10 in Win Shares, as of September 2. Win Shares is nice because it works backwards from wins. That gives it the advantage of giving a player's true value, relative to his team's performance, and it is also quite innovative in judging defense. It does take clutch hitting into account. 1. Gary Sheffield 2. Hideki Matsui (wow) 3. Carlos Guillen 4. Vladimir Guerrero 5. Miguel Tejada 6. Manny Ramirez 7. Jose Guillen 8. Hank Blalock 9. Alex Rodriguez 10. Michael Young 15. Ichiro Suzuki I am not sure off-hand what pushes Suzuki so low. I need to look into it.

Because they create more runs than any other player in the league. Well, that depends on which MVP school of thought you believe in 1. The #1 player in the league, period, regardless of his effect on his team (how Al sees it) 2. The player who actually is the most valuable to his team (how I see it) Hence why I can't support a player, no matter how good, on a last place team getting MVP. An MVP, to me, takes a basement/average team and lifts them to playoff contender level. How much value can an MVP (in the true sense) have on a last place team? Does he take them from sub-basement level to basement/average level? Look at Alex Rodriguez. If he wasn't on the Rangers last year, would they have been saying "what's up?" to the Tigers in the contender-for-worst-record-of-all-time competition? Well, I can say one thing: He's not there anymore, and look where the Rangers are. That's value, I tell you what. I maintain a player can add value to a losing team, for this reason. The baseline for wins is not 81 games. It is zero. And rest assured any business expert will tell you the difference between the attendance of a team which won 81 games, and won that won 39 games. My second argument, in the A-Rod case, is that the Rangers had good hitting, but almost historically bad pitching. Is it A-Rod's fault that no one could pitch? It was evident that the only reason you could not give Rodriguez the award was because he had bad teammates. That's a silly reason to give out an award. They have similar awards already. They are called pennants. I am not looking for a team's performance. I am looking for an individual's performance. The written MVP instructions support this: Dear Voter: There is no clear-cut definition of what Most Valuable means. It is up to the individual voter to decide who was the Most Valuable Player in each league to his team. The MVP need not come from a division winner or other playoff qualifier. The rules of the voting remain the same as they were written on the first ballot in 1931: 1. Actual value of a player to his team, that is, strength of offense and defense. 2. Number of games played. 3. General character, disposition, loyalty and effort. 4. Former winners are eligible. 5. Members of the committee may vote for more than one member of a team. You are also urged to give serious consideration to all your selections, from 1 to 10. A 10th-place vote can influence the outcome of an election. You must fill in all 10 places on your ballot. Keep in mind that all players are eligible for MVP, and that includes pitchers and designated hitters. Only regular-season performances are to be taken into consideration. Third, the MVP usually does not come from a last place team. A-Rod was the exception to the rule.

I will say in your defense that Ichiro leads the league in runs created.

Of course not. But those things do create runs, which we can't ignore. And it is not impossible for leadoff hitters to be the best hitters in their league. Tim Raines and Rickey Henderson had years where they were the best hitters.

Because they create more runs than any other player in the league.

It depends on what his competitors do. But in order to hit .400, he needs to hit around .500 this month. And if he does that, I think he is the player to beat.

The guy who is going to break the season hit record isn't the best hitter??? Oh that's right, you don't need to get hits to be a good hitter. Sorry, I forgot that you have to hit 50+ HR's in a season to be considered a good hitter. There is more to hitting than simply collecting hits. Home runs are more valuable than singles. Walks are a hitting skill, and a batter who controls the strike zone adds value as a hitter. Who led the American League in hits last season? Props if you can answer Vernon Wells without looking it up (or being a Blue Jays fan). Manny Ramirez and Gary Sheffield are better hitters because they hit for power, and their doubles and home runs are more devestating on the opposing team. Now if I ranked hitters ONLY on home runs, that would be just as shortsighted. We look at the complete picture. That said, if the season ended today, I would place Ichiro on my hypothetical MVP ballot, and probably in the top 5. And hell, I would even give him consideration for the big prize.

Ichiro Suzuki went 5 for 5 yeaterday, increasing his hits total to 223. He's 34 hits short of the record, with 27 games to play. He is on pace for 268 hits. While less spectacular, he's also on pace to break the single season at bats total. The record is 705 (Willie Wilson, 1980). Ichiro is on pace for 707. In order to hit .400, Ichiro would need to hit about .508 the rest of the season.

In the future, PM me, and I'll make sure this gets pinned. Otherwise I might miss it.

Is that Mahmoud Abdul-Rauf you speak of? There have certainly been many examples of terrific free throw shooters. We still see them today. Four players topped 90% this season. Four topped 90% in 1994, as well as four in 1989. Oddly, no player shot free throws better than 90% in 1984.

Because nobody is defending them? Some superstars like Shaq or Tim Duncan cannot buy a free throw. In that case it is more of a mental distraction that keeps them from making the easy points. Maybe they need to talk to themselves like Karl Malone or Jason Kidd to make those important free throws. Big men almost always have trouble with free throws. I think it is because their size is more of a factor than skill in getting them to the NBA. That's not an insult, just an observation. As for no one defending them, if that's the case, why weren't the players of yesteryear even better from the line? On another note. Earlier I defended Allen Iverson by bringing up Turnover Ratio. I got to thinking that Turnover Ratio deflated my argument about turnovers. So I computed Turnover Ratio for all the teams. Turnover Ratio improved in 1986, and has remained fairly constant ever since. So NBA teams over the last two decades have made turnovers at roughly the same rate.