You’ve probably read similar articles elsewhere and are sure to read them in the future, but the Boston Globe took a look at Theo’s transactions and marked them as successes or failures. If you’ve been reading this site or ACB before it for any amount of time you know I have serious issues with how people classify transactions in that way. You can’t look at a transaction after the fact and evaluate whether or not it was a good decision. That’s not how it works. No GM knows how a specific player is going to perform in the future. All we have is the basic aging curve and the player’s past statistics to evaluate how he is likely to perform.
Imagine you’re at a bar and after 10 or 12 drinks you get in your car and drive home safely. Was it a good decision to drive drunk because you ended up getting home safely? Of course not, but people who evaluate transactions after the fact are using information that we couldn’t have known. It’s very likely a drunk person will get home without injuring himself or others. It’s more likely than not. However, drinking greatly impairs a person’s ability to operate a vehicle. It significantly increases the chances of an accident resulting in injury or death to yourself and others. Because of that increased risk, we know getting in a car after drinking is a bad idea. Whether or not you safely reached your destiniation is irrelevant information when deciding whether or not a good decision had been made.
That’s what people are doing when they evaluate a contract years after it was signed. The decision was made months or years ago and the decision is either good, decent or bad at that time. The decision does not become good or bad years later.
Let’s say Albert Pujols signs with the Cubs this offseason for 8 years and $24 million. No, I didn’t leave a zero out. $3 million per year for Albert Pujols. That’s what the Cubs sign him for. Let’s also say that he performs like a replacement level player the first few years of the contract and then is well below replacement level after that. He’s suffered a series of injuries sapping his power, pitchers are pitching him more in the zone rather than nibbling and every other stat collapses. If that happened he’s worth $0, but the Cubs have paid $24 million more than that. It would appear to be a bad deal if we were judging it based on information we didn’t have at the time we made the decision. I don’t even think the dumbest man alive would claim that contract was bad regardless of how it ended up. We would know that signing him to that deal is good just as we’d know driving home after 10 or 12 drinks is a bad decision. How come we can’t come to similar conclusions when the quality of the decision is less obvious?
Edgar Renteria‘s 4 year, $40 million contract is thrown in with the busts, but Renteria was worth 9.2 rWAR from 2005 through 2008. The Red Sox traded him a year after signing him, but over those 4 years he was a valuable player. He was probably not worth the contract he signed overall, but we’re looking at this after we already know what happened. The decision was made at the end of the 2004 season. We have to look at it then.
From 2002 through 2004 Renteria was worth 13.2 rWAR. I’m too lazy to do an actual projection, but we can see that the previous 3 years, the most important ones, were pretty good for Renteria. We know he was entering only his age 28 season in 2005 so he wasn’t over the hill yet. He was at the end of his peak and would begin to decline. A reasonable projection probably came it at about 11 WAR. Renteria underperformed his projection, but at the time, the contract was anything but a bust. Perhaps you don’t consider it a good decision, but it absolutely was not a bad one.
The Red Sox signed Matt Clement for 3 years, beginning in 2005, for a total of $24 million. Clement had spent the previous 3 seasons pitching very well for the Cubs. He had been worth almost 10 rWAR. I don’t even need to think this over in my head to know that signing was a good one. It worked out poorly as Clement was injured, but at the time it was a good one.
Listed under “Bad Extensions” is Curt Schilling‘s 1-year, $8 million extension for the 2007 season. He had been worth more than 10 WAR the previous 3 years and they paid him for about 2 wins. He was actually worth 3 rWAR. That was a good decision at the time and turned out to be a very good one.
Theo Epstein is going to make mistakes. Some of his transactions will be good. Some will only be decent. Some will be bad. Nobody is perfect. Even if you evaluate the decision in a correct manner you will find bad decisions. Carl Crawford, though some people disagree, was a very poor decision in my opinion. Berselius and I both said the same thing right after it was signed. There’s still plenty of time for Crawford to perform up to expectations, but that doesn’t change whether or not the decision was good.
I’d like to to know what the reasoning was behind the Crawford deal. It looked really bad on paper, but supposedly Theo’s staff did research and number-crunching on how players like him age.
Honestly, though, I’d like the Cubs to avoid long-term mega-contracts as much as possible.
[quote name=ACT]I’d like to to know what the reasoning was behind the Crawford deal. It looked really bad on paper, but supposedly Theo’s staff did research and number-crunching on how players like him age.[/quote]There was some research on The Book Blog that showed it was a decent deal. What’s interesting to me is that Theo gave the same reasoning (athletic people can remain good longer) that Jim Hendry gave when they signed Soriano. The problem with Soriano is that he was never that good and once the leg injuries hit he was never going to be as good as they hoped.
[quote name=ACT]Honestly, though, I’d like the Cubs to avoid long-term mega-contracts as much as possible.[/quote]Do you guys think, after seeing guys like A-Rod, Teixiera, Joe Mauer and the like succumb to injury/bad luck/bad performance/whatever, that teams will be less apt to offer uberbucks and the free agent salaries will come back down to earth?
[quote name=Rice Cube]Do you guys think, after seeing guys like A-Rod, Teixiera, Joe Mauer and the like succumb to injury/bad luck/bad performance/whatever, that teams will be less apt to offer uberbucks and the free agent salaries will come back down to earth?[/quote]I’m sure they’d like that, but I doubt it.
I guess they were hoping for around 30 wins from Crawford over the course of that deal…30 wins in 7 years doesn’t seem that unreasonable, does it?
I wonder if teams factor in a luck factor to these kinds of deals. Take a large class of comparable players and evaluate how they performed compared to their projections and then developed a factor that basically said how likely he is to under or over perform after a free agent signing. It would be like a risk factor. You don’t pay based on the risk factor, since it is just a guess, you pay based on the metrics, but maybe the risk factor helps you make the decision, if it takes the player over or under a certain threshold, on whether it is a good idea to pull the trigger on the signing.
It seems to me if the occurrence of a player vastly underperforming is common enough, then at some point you could save money by not taking those risks. Maybe it’s just too much of an unknown. Or maybe a better medical evaluation that could more accurately predict his potential for injury should factor in.
I wouldn’t put Teixeira in the group.
To me, the threshold for whether you drive after you’ve been drinking is a lot lower than whether you sign a baseball player to a big contract, because the outcome on the back end is potentially much more loaded. If you have a bad outcome with D&D you or an innocent person could die. If you have a bad outcome with a baseball contract you ….. well…. Soriano.
So maybe there’s a way to figure out what a team’s comfort level is with a decision based on the range of possible outcomes, rather than just on how the player performs right now and how he has performed in the 3-4 seasons up to now.
[quote name=Rice Cube]I guess they were hoping for around 30 wins from Crawford over the course of that deal…30 wins in 7 years doesn’t seem that unreasonable, does it?[/quote]I’d guess 20-24 WAR over the length of the contract, but let me run some numbers.
Starting the value of the win at 4.75 million in 2011 and increasing by 7% annually we get an average win value of $5.66 million. He’s being paid $142 million (right?) so that’s 25 WAR.
That’s what Cot’s says. $142M
[quote name=mb21]Starting the value of the win at 4.75 million in 2011 and increasing by 7% annually we get an average win value of $5.66 million. He’s being paid $142 million (right?) so that’s 25 WAR.[/quote]Oh, I forgot to account for inflation and multi-year discount. Oops. That still seems reasonable though from the expected wins perspective, but since I’m poor, it’s still a shitload of money (dying laughing)
Wasn’t Hendry’s defense on Soriano simply that he was the best FA available that year? The implication being that he knew he’d overpaid, but he was following orders to get the best available at any cost.
MB I have problem with the sample size in your hypo. We would need someone to drive home drunk several hundred times before we could really evaluate that decision.
[quote name=GBTS]MB I have problem with the sample size in your hypo. We would need someone to drive home drunk several hundred times before we could really evaluate that decision.[/quote]Challenge accepted.
[quote name=josh]To me, the threshold for whether you drive after you’ve been drinking is a lot lower than whether you sign a baseball player to a big contract, because the outcome on the back end is potentially much more loaded. If you have a bad outcome with D&D you or an innocent person could die. If you have a bad outcome with a baseball contract you ….. well…. Soriano.
So maybe there’s a way to figure out what a team’s comfort level is with a decision based on the range of possible outcomes, rather than just on how the player performs right now and how he has performed in the 3-4 seasons up to now.[/quote]This is a really good point.
[quote name=josh]Wasn’t Hendry’s defense on Soriano simply that he was the best FA available that year? The implication being that he knew he’d overpaid, but he was following orders to get the best available at any cost.[/quote]When asked about being worried about whether or not Soriano would age poorly, he talked about his athleticism and how that would help. 5 years later Theo Epstein says the same thing that Jim Hendry did and Theo is a genius.
[quote name=GBTS]MB I have problem with the sample size in your hypo. We would need someone to drive home drunk several hundred times before we could really evaluate that decision.[/quote]It’s embarrassing to even think about how many times I drove drunk when I was younger. I was never in an accident so that disproves that driving drunk is a bad idea.
[quote name=mb21]It’s embarrassing to even think about how many times I drove drunk when I was younger. I was never in an accident so that disproves that driving drunk is a bad idea.[/quote]You accumulated a lot of DHSAR (Driving Home Safe Above Replacement).
[quote name=GBTS]You accumulated a lot of DHSAR (Driving Home Safe Above Replacement).[/quote]I spent a lot of time working on my abilities. Spent time in bars and then race tracks, lifted some weights, believed in myself that I could do it. I was scrappy and some people called me a winner. It was dedication. God gave me the natural ability to drive drunk.
MB I see where you’re coming from, but I do think there is some value in evaluating trades after the fact. An extreme case shows why: Suppose a GM made 1000 trades that looked fine at the time according to your metrics, but every single guy he acquired developed a career-ending shoulder injury a month after acquisition. You’d have to conclude that the GM’s process systematically picks, and reverses the value of, looming injuries; and also that while your metrics weren’t able to spot it either, at least they didn’t *favor* the injury prone guys, whereas your GM’s system did.
Of course, that’s a silly example, but in real life I think it’s a little like the predictive WAR vs. descriptive WAR vs. WPA “debate”; all of them have analytical value, but some of them are more applicable in certain scenarios. I think if you’re looking at just a few trades, you have to evaluate them as you have, based on what the GM “should” have done; but with a lot of trades I think it’s fair to do an analysis of outcomes like the Globe’s done. I think the unknown factor is where to draw the line of where one analysis becomes more useful than the other.
http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/report_sox-cubs.html
[quote name=mb21]I spent a lot of time working on my abilities. Spent time in bars and then race tracks, lifted some weights, believed in myself that I could do it. I was scrappy and some people called me a winner. It was dedication. God gave me the natural ability to drive drunk.[/quote]You have a bright future in the Red Sox bullpen, my son.
/Boston media’d
Fang, I agree that looking at a large group of transactions would produce some valuable information. It’s what I tried to do with Jim Hendry and covered almost every transaction he had made. If we do that, we should list the results for players on some objective measure rather than subjective like that article was. I just don’t see how anyone can say that Curt Schilling’s 2007 was a bust.
[quote name=mb21]http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/report_sox-cubs.html[/quote]Interesting that the hometown-hating media on both sides is claiming that their hometown has an advantage in negotiations. Both agree that a deal is inevitable, because the other side will fold.
[quote name=fang2415]Interesting that the hometown-hating media on both sides is claiming that their hometown has an advantage in negotiations. Both agree that a deal is inevitable, because the other side will fold.[/quote]I was thinking the same thing. I really don’t know where the leverage lies. I imagine it’s not as simple as “holding all the cards” because Boston doesn’t. I also imagine it’s not as simple as the Cubs just offering nothing and waiting Boston out. They won’t cave in.
[quote name=mb21]Fang, I agree that looking at a large group of transactions would produce some valuable information. It’s what I tried to do with Jim Hendry and covered almost every transaction he had made. If we do that, we should list the results for players on some objective measure rather than subjective like that article was. I just don’t see how anyone can say that Curt Schilling’s 2007 was a bust.[/quote]Well, that article doesn’t do much analysis aside from “Finds: [list] Busts: [list] Dunno: [list]“.
But yeah, I’d be quite interested to see a table of projected vs observed value for all of Theo’s “hundreds” of deals, maybe compared to the players he gave up. That would basically tells you how much better/worse he is at projecting players than, well, us.
Didn’t your Hendry piece mostly just looked at the big(ger) transactions, or am I forgetting that you included a zillion other deals in your analysis? If Theo made “hundreds” then Hendry must have too? Is there a list of all of them somewhere? Or is the Globe including grounds-crew and vending contracts in that number so that their article sound more dramatic? (dying laughing)
I looked at all of Hendry’s official transactions. I can’t remember how many exactly, but including trades I think there were over 150.
A quick look and import into Excel shows 50 free agent signings through the 2009 offseason and 92 trades: http://www.anothercubsblog.net/analysis/articles/jim-hendry.html
The numbers have obviously changed somewhat (perhaps considerably for free agent signings considering Soriano and Zambrano).
[quote name=mb21]I looked at all of Hendry’s official transactions. I can’t remember how many exactly, but including trades I think there were over 150.[/quote]Was that here or at ACB? You got the link handy?
If you add in last season you can add Carlos Pena and Reed Johnson as free agent signings. Anyone else? As far as trades you have to add in Matt Garza and the other 7 players changing hands along with Fukudome. Anyone else traded this past year?
[quote name=fang2415]Was that here or at ACB? You got the link handy?[/quote]The link is above. I think that actually started on ACB before it ever joined Bloguin so prior to December, 2009. I know I added a couple other pieces after that (multi-year contracts being one).
[quote name=mb21]http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/report_sox-cubs.html[/quote]
Ooh, Boston media vs. Chicago media. I like it.
[quote name=Rodrigo Ramirez]Ooh, Boston media vs. Chicago media. I like it.[/quote]It’s like a tallest midget contest.
How many people have to post this image of Theo?
I’ve seen that image 8000 times since last week. Get a new fucking image, people.
Sandberg has been managing in the Phillies’ system for the last 3 years? That doesn’t seem right.
http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/post/Cubs-Red-Sox-to-battle-for-Sandberg?blockID=577868&feedID=619
[quote name=mb21]The link is above. I think that actually started on ACB before it ever joined Bloguin so prior to December, 2009. I know I added a couple other pieces after that (multi-year contracts being one).[/quote]Got it, nice. I might have a lazy, Aramis Ramirez-inspired, half-baked statistical play with them thar numbers.
Are all the ACB comments gone, or are they just not showing up for me?
(dying laughing) that’s CSN Chicago making that mistake about Sandberg.
[quote name=fang2415]Got it, nice. I might have a lazy, Aramis Ramirez-inspired, half-baked statistical play with them thar numbers.
Are all the ACB comments gone, or are they just not showing up for me?[/quote]I published that as a collection of the articles I’d written on Hendry so there were no comments. Livefyre wasn’t around when they were written anyway so the comments aren’t visible. They’re there, but not set to show up. If you look for the individual posts and want to check out the comments, let me know and I can get there up for you.
[quote name=mb21]How many people have to post this image of Theo?
I’ve seen that image 8000 times since last week. Get a new fucking image, people.[/quote]Hey, whoa, give them a break, it’s not like there’s hundreds of old images out there around which you can build a narrative of Theo being unhappy.
[quote name=mb21]I published that as a collection of the articles I’d written on Hendry so there were no comments. Livefyre wasn’t around when they were written anyway so the comments aren’t visible. They’re there, but not set to show up. If you look for the individual posts and want to check out the comments, let me know and I can get there up for you.[/quote]So the non-LiveFaget comments won’t show up for normal articles either then? I don’t really care, but the other day I was looking for the origin of the faget-spelling meme and couldn’t find it. (dying laughing)
[quote name=Rodrigo Ramirez]http://www.csnchicago.com/blog/cubs-talk/post/Cubs-Red-Sox-to-battle-for-Sandberg?blockID=577868&feedID=619[/quote]Jesus, all I have to say is thank fuck the Red Sox aren’t in our division. This acrimonious negotiation shit is getting tiresome already.
[quote name=fang2415]MB I see where you’re coming from, but I do think there is some value in evaluating trades after the fact. An extreme case shows why: Suppose a GM made 1000 trades that looked fine at the time according to your metrics, but every single guy he acquired developed a career-ending shoulder injury a month after acquisition. You’d have to conclude that the GM’s process systematically picks, and reverses the value of, looming injuries; and also that while your metrics weren’t able to spot it either, at least they didn’t *favor* the injury prone guys, whereas your GM’s system did.
Of course, that’s a silly example, but in real life I think it’s a little like the predictive WAR vs. descriptive WAR vs. WPA “debate”; all of them have analytical value, but some of them are more applicable in certain scenarios. I think if you’re looking at just a few trades, you have to evaluate them as you have, based on what the GM “should” have done; but with a lot of trades I think it’s fair to do an analysis of outcomes like the Globe’s done. I think the unknown factor is where to draw the line of where one analysis becomes more useful than the other.[/quote]That’s along the lines of what I was thinking too. If your predictive metrics are consistently not working out, then if could be really bad luck, or you could have a problem with the way you’re predicting.
[quote name=mb21]How many people have to post this image of Theo?
I’ve seen that image 8000 times since last week. Get a new fucking image, people.[/quote]
I can see how making tons of transactions under ferocious scrutiny from an ungrateful fan base can cause constipation.
[quote name=mb21]http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/report_sox-cubs.html[/quote]Wow. If they’re that standoffish I wonder if they can get it done before the WS starts without MLB intervention.
When did the Garza trade happen again? Wikipedia says Jan 7, 2011, but MLB’s transaction list doesn’t show it anywhere in Jan: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/?tcid=mm_mlb_players#month=1&year=2011
[quote name=fang2415]When did the Garza trade happen again? Wikipedia says Jan 7, 2011, but MLB’s transaction list doesn’t show it anywhere in Jan: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/?tcid=mm_mlb_players#month=1&year=2011/quoteUh, right, so the Garza trade isn’t on that list for any month this winter. Same with the Vernon Wells trade. Is MLB’s list just bullshit or am I missing something?
http://espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2011/story/_/id/7103882/tony-la-russa-pushing-right-buttons
I’m not a fan of TLR, but I’m with him here. Bullpens tend to put up better numbers than starters (especially the third time through the lineup), so why not rely more heavily on the pen with the championship on the line? I wonder if this will cause other teams to reevaluate the importance of starters going deep into games to save the pen?
[quote name=ACT]http://espn.go.com/mlb/playoffs/2011/story/_/id/7103882/tony-la-russa-pushing-right-buttons
I’m not a fan of TLR, but I’m with him here. Bullpens tend to put up better numbers than starters (especially the third time through the lineup), so why not rely more heavily on the pen with the championship on the line? I wonder if this will cause other teams to reevaluate the importance of starters going deep into games to save the pen?[/quote]No.
[quote name=fang2415]Uh, right, so the Garza trade isn’t on that list for any month this winter. Same with the Vernon Wells trade. Is MLB’s list just bullshit or am I missing something?[/quote]Right, well, I may still be missing something, but if not then it does look like MLB’s transaction list is total bullshit:
http://transactions.mlbtraderumors.com/widget/transactions-tracker&link=true&widget=true&amount_type=4&partner_GM_ID=2&GM_ID=18&startDate=01/07/2011&endDate=01/07/2011&lang=41
http://espn.go.com/mlb/transactions/_/date/20110108
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/?tcid=mm_mlb_players#month=1&year=2011&team_id=112
[quote name=josh]No.[/quote]It wouldn’t be the first time TLR rewrote the book on bullpen management.
I checked 3 sources for the transactions (cubs.com, espn.com and b-ref).
Regarding comments, the old livefyre comments should be there, but I don’t know. I haven’t looked.
Effective sales technique:
Per Muskat, no Brett Jackson to Boston.
https://twitter.com/#!/CarrieMuskat/status/125222488094425088
If that’s the case, hard to see how this stretches out for much longer.
They’re negotiating which personnel Theo gets to take with him to Chicago.
[quote name=Smokestack Lightning]Per Muskat, no Brett Jackson to Boston.
https://twitter.com/#!/CarrieMuskat/status/125222488094425088
If that’s the case, hard to see how this stretches out for much longer.[/quote]Win if true. I seriously don’t think I’ll be upset if it’s anybody other than Jackson.
Do we have a sense of how many they’d want? Could they be asking McNutt + Carpenter? + Jay Jackson maybe? I think I’m placing too low a value on quantity, but sending three guys like that doesn’t bug me as much as sending one BJax…
[quote name=ACT]They’re negotiating which personnel Theo gets to take with him to Chicago.[/quote]http://twitter.com/#!/nickcafardo/status/125286394871558144 …
Question is, now that Cherington is staying on as GM, who would Theo want to take with him?
[quote name=Rice Cube]Question is, now that Cherington is staying on as GM, who would Theo want to take with him?[/quote]Sounds like their medical trainer is bound to come to Chicago with Theo from everything I’ve read.
[quote name=mb21]Sounds like their medical trainer is bound to come to Chicago with Theo from everything I’ve read.[/quote]He must be some kind of witch doctor if they want extra compensation then.
[quote name=Rice Cube]He must be some kind of witch doctor if they want extra compensation then.[/quote]You mean like a witch doctor that’s more like a doctor, or a witch doctor that’s more like a witch? Anyway, from everything I hear both Theo and the Sox are very interested in finding ways to keep players healthy, so for all we know their trainer is the most important guy in the system to them (dying laughing).
[quote name=fang2415]You mean like a witch doctor that’s more like a doctor, or a witch doctor that’s more like a witch? Anyway, from everything I hear both Theo and the Sox are very interested in finding ways to keep players healthy, so for all we know their trainer is the most important guy in the system to them (dying laughing).[/quote]How much is magic worth to Theo and the Cubs?
[quote name=Rice Cube]He must be some kind of witch doctor if they want extra compensation then.[/quote]This would explain all of the sacrificed chickens in the locker room.
[quote name=cdw]This would explain all of the sacrificed chickens in the locker room.[/quote]If only I had the Major League clip ready…
Fuck yea Hawkeyes! It’s great to see Persa get knocked on his ass and throw a pick six.
EDIT: Guess mb isn’t around.
Fernando Perez returns, sort of:
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/10/draft-links-bonuses-fernando-perez.html
[quote name=Smokestack Lightning]Per Muskat, no Brett Jackson to Boston.
https://twitter.com/#!/CarrieMuskat/status/125222488094425088
If that’s the case, hard to see how this stretches out for much longer.[/quote]…odd that this isn’t getting more re-reporting. Muskat isn’t usually blatantly wrong on stuff like this, is she?
[quote name=cdw]Fuck yea Hawkeyes! It’s great to see Persa get knocked on his ass and throw a pick six.
EDIT: Guess mb isn’t around.[/quote]Nobody hears your screams.
[quote name=fang2415]…odd that this isn’t getting more re-reporting. Muskat isn’t usually blatantly wrong on stuff like this, is she?[/quote]As the Cubs’ official beat reporter you would think that she would know the most, right?
[quote name=cdw]Fuck yea Hawkeyes! It’s great to see Persa get knocked on his ass and throw a pick six.
EDIT: Guess mb isn’t around.[/quote]I saw it. I was getting so pissed that Iowa can’t do shit with Persa and then that. Made me very happy. (dying laughing)
[quote name=fang2415]…odd that this isn’t getting more re-reporting. Muskat isn’t usually blatantly wrong on stuff like this, is she?[/quote]No, she’s probably the most reliable among the reporters.
Persa is horribly frustrating to watch b/c he picks apart our zone and moves the pocket – even when he can’t run. liking the game so far.
I figured NW would win the game tonight. I thought since I’d picked Iowa every year when they’ve lost that I’d just pick NW. Seems to have worked. (dying laughing)
Vandenberg is pretty damn good. Going to be fun to watch him late in the season and next year especially.
JVB is a little erratic but the man can throw an accurate ball, deep too. Fucking Persa
can’t runand that is back to back 3rd downs he’s picked up.Iowa DB got screened on that TD.
Iowa is going to find a way to lose this one.
Holy shit. Iowa sacked Persa. I swear, that has never happened. (dying laughing)
As soon as JVB threw that pick I was expecting another jNW drive to the red zone.
(dying laughing) at the announcers! “What is going on here? Iowa has three time outs. Iowa had the chance to put some points on the board there but not anymore.” (dying laughing) He’s never watched an Iowa game coached by Kirk.
Iowa’s defense has to be exhausted. Wait ’til the 4th quarter. NW will put up 28 points on a defense that is literally asleep on the field.
Holy fuck, this D can’t get off the field on 3rd down.
[quote name=mb21]Iowa’s defense has to be exhausted. Wait ’til the 4th quarter. NW will put up 28 points on a defense that is literally asleep on the field.[/quote]This
We had at least 4 missed tackles on that drive. NW probably got 20+ yards & a TD off those.
This is the worst defense in the Ferentz era since his first season as coach. They’re fucking terrible.
3rd and 4 coming up and it will be a first down for sure. You just know it.
I don’t think Iowa could tackle me.
Seriously, if I was laying on the ground, Iowa couldn’t tackle me.
NW getting a 3rd down against this D may be the easiest prediction for a human to make accurately.
What kind of shit call was that by NW? 3rd and a half yard. Go up the middle.
About fucking time guys. I figured that option would pick up the 3rd down every time.
EDIT: Seriously, I thought they could get at least two yards off that play every time.
[quote name=mb21]What kind of shit call was that by NW? 3rd and a half yard. Go up the middle.[/quote]They figured everything they call on 3rd down works. So why not?
The offense needs to stay on the field and stop this NW offense v Iowa defense negative feedback loop.
The offense finally did what it’s supposed to do. Can the defense?
[quote name=mb21]The offense finally did what it’s supposed to do. Can the defense?[/quote]I’ve got zero confidence in the defense. NW fucking owns them with short passes and options. Iowa needs pressure to have any success and that comes as often as Haley’s comet.
13 converted 3rd downs brought to you by the Santorum that is the Iowa D.
Any bets on who faces off against the Rangers next week? I still have the Cardinals.
I’m betting on Cards but I’d rather see MIL.
I figure it’s the Cardinals. Once they got past the Phillies I figured they’d win the World Series.
[quote name=mb21]I figure it’s the Cardinals. Once they got past the Phillies I figured they’d win the World Series.[/quote]You figuring on the NL home field advantage on that prediction?
Wow. Can you imagine how good McNutt’s career numbers would be if he had been a receiver his entire career? He didn’t move to that position from QB until his sophomore season and he didn’t get much playing time early on in 2009 when he was still learning the position.
[quote name=Rice Cube]You figuring on the NL home field advantage on that prediction?[/quote]Actually no. I just figured it’s the Cardinals. (dying laughing)
[quote name=mb21]Wow. Can you imagine how good McNutt’s career numbers would be if he had been a receiver his entire career? He didn’t move to that position from QB until his sophomore season and he didn’t get much playing time early on in 2009 when he was still learning the position.[/quote]Incredible. I’m just glad we’ve had him the past the years at WR. A position WR was needed.
Methinks there’s only so much Ryan Theriot can do though.
Fucking killed Persa on that fumble.
Big game for Bigach
The only thing I really care about in this article is number 3: http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post?id=6757
Nice call by Iowa there. About fucking time they beat NW at home.
Rangers running with a 7-run lead? Isn’t there an unwritten rule about that?
The Rangers scored 9 in one inning. Wow.
wow, northwestern has been brutal in the second half this year.
[quote name=mb21]The only thing I really care about in this article is number 3: http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post?id=6757/quoteDidn't Theo tell Red Sox nation once upon a time something similar? I thought he was the example people use to show a GM who wasn’t afraid to tell his fan base that the team may not be super competitive in the short term…
[quote name=mb21]Nice call by Iowa there. About fucking time they beat NW at home.[/quote]Yep. Nice to see Kirk be aggressive there. No reason not to go for the 1st there. NW is so fucking annoying. Glad Iowa finally beat them. Relief.
belated post from earlier today
(dying laughing) Wisconsin went into Fuck You mode early with that Ball to Wilson TD
Congrats on slamming the door on Just Northwestern, Iowa fans
OSU had ONE completion today. (dying laughing). I’m dissapointed Wisc didn’t put up 70 today. Taking Wilson out in the 3rd was the only reason they didn’t put up that score. The throw back to Wilson was hilarious.
[quote name=mb21]The only thing I really care about in this article is number 3: http://espn.go.com/blog/chicago/cubs/post?id=6757/quoteI'm extremely fucking pleased with the Theo hire. #3 is very important. The mentions of Dallas Green make me worry about #3 happening on Theo’s watch. Hopefully, Rickett’s will be patient and satisfied with competing for a playoff spot every year.
I’m going to go ahead and pick Texas to win the AL pennant this year.
Cruz!
I don’t believe hitters get “locked in,” but Cruz is definitely locked in.
[quote name=ACT]I don’t believe hitters get “locked in,” but Cruz is definitely locked in.[/quote]His strategy for this post season has been to swing for the fences at every at bat. It has been working, as far as that goes.
[quote name=cdw]I’m extremely fucking pleased with the Theo hire. #3 is very important. The mentions of Dallas Green make me worry about #3 happening on Theo’s watch. Hopefully, Rickett’s will be patient and satisfied with competing for a playoff spot every year.[/quote]Maybe it’s pie-in-the-sky to say so, but I really think Ricketts has shown a commitment to building a better organization, not just winning a Series.
It’s looking like 15 runs may hold up.
[quote name=josh]It’s looking like 15 runs may hold up.[/quote]Correct. Texas already the favorites to win it all.
[quote name=Rice Cube]Correct. Texas already the favorites to win it all.[/quote]They look better this year than they did last year. They’re going to be a tough team to beat. But St. Louis is a pesky team.
[quote name=josh]They look better this year than they did last year. They’re going to be a tough team to beat. But St. Louis is a pesky team.[/quote]They have Ryan Theriot!
So is it possible the Theo deal is already done and they’re just waiting until after the WS to announce it? That would explain Carrie Muskat’s certainty that BJAx is not going anywhere. She actually has an inside track, unlike most of the other reporters.
[quote name=Rice Cube]They have Ryan Theriot![/quote]yeah, I meant despite him.
[quote name=josh]So is it possible the Theo deal is already done and they’re just waiting until after the WS to announce it? That would explain Carrie Muskat’s certainty that BJAx is not going anywhere. She actually has an inside track, unlike most of the other reporters.[/quote]If it’s done, they might just be waiting for whenever STL or MIL finish their series.
[quote name=Rice Cube]If it’s done, they might just be waiting for whenever STL or MIL finish their series.[/quote]If it is done, they would announce it now. It is severely frowned upon for teams to announce anything once the World Series gets started. Occasionally somebody thumbs their nose at Selig, but it is rare.
[quote name=Aisle424]If it is done, they would announce it now. It is severely frowned upon for teams to announce anything once the World Series gets started. Occasionally somebody thumbs their nose at Selig, but it is rare.[/quote]That’s why I was wondering if they weren’t even going to wait until after the WS at this point. Seems like any time during the playoffs you could be perceived as trying to steal a team’s thunder.
During the League Championship Series, major things can be announced. This would fall under that category. Once the World Series starts, you face Selig’s wrath for stepping on the pageantry of the World Series. Like people would forget about the World Series if someone made an announcement. Selig is such a fuckwad.
[quote name=Aisle424]If it is done, they would announce it now. It is severely frowned upon for teams to announce anything once the World Series gets started. Occasionally somebody thumbs their nose at Selig, but it is rare.[/quote]I figured they’d wait until the NLCS/ALCS were over but right before the WS. Then there’s no actual game to interrupt.
[quote name=Rice Cube]I figured they’d wait until the NLCS/ALCS were over but right before the WS. Then there’s no actual game to interrupt.[/quote]There is no way Tom Ricketts gives a fuck about stealing some spotlight from the NLCS, especially since it involves two major rivals.
[quote name=Aisle424] Alvin “Bud” Selig is such a fuckwad.[/quote]
.
[quote name=Aisle424]There is no way Tom Ricketts gives a fuck about stealing some spotlight from the NLCS, especially since it involves two major rivals.[/quote]In that case, I guess nothing’s been decided yet. Which is sad, as we’re all tired of waiting (dying laughing)
[quote name=Aisle424]There is no way Tom Ricketts gives a fuck about stealing some spotlight from the NLCS, especially since it involves two major rivals.[/quote]
I’d say there’s a 50/50 chance Tom gives a Fuck.
Wow, I just got around to reading this:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15295
That’s quite something. Although it puts a bit of a damper on this year’s Cubs draft. Except of course for 6th-rounder Neftali Rosario and 9th-rounder Garrett Schlecht, both of whom apparently deserved to be sandwich-round picks! (dying laughing)
[quote name=fang2415]Wow, I just got around to reading this:
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=15295
That’s quite something. Although it puts a bit of a damper on this year’s Cubs draft. Except of course for 6th-rounder Neftali Rosario and 9th-rounder Garrett Schlecht, both of whom apparently deserved to be sandwich-round picks! (dying laughing)[/quote]
Good news, josh vitters. Rany says you shouldn’t be terrible!
seriously, though, there’s one pretty good critique of the finding up at the book blog, which is that the sample may be biased by the top few picks.
[quote name=GW]Good news, josh vitters. Rany says you shouldn’t be terrible!
seriously, though, there’s one pretty good critique of the finding up at the book blog, which is that the sample may be biased by the top few picks.[/quote]You mean this one?
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/return_on_high_school_players_drafted_by_age/#comments
Interesting so far, although I’d like to see some more detailed critique — it looked like most of them hadn’t read it all the way through yet (dying laughing).
The overperformance of top picks wouldn’t be a systematic bias though since old HS picks would be just as likely to overperform? But I guess it could mean that crazy fluctuations within the small sample of superstars could skew the whole mean… Still though, looks pretty good to me so far — the effect is awfully regular, even for subsamples, so I’m hesitant to blame it on random fluctuations…
I also get the critique that young picks may be riskier. I guess that could be addressed by checking the dispersion of performance for young vs old high-school picks?
[quote name=fang2415]You mean this one?
http://www.insidethebook.com/ee/index.php/site/comments/return_on_high_school_players_drafted_by_age/#comments
Interesting so far, although I’d like to see some more detailed critique — it looked like most of them hadn’t read it all the way through yet (dying laughing).
The overperformance of top picks wouldn’t be a systematic bias though since old HS picks would be just as likely to overperform? But I guess it could mean that crazy fluctuations within the small sample of superstars could skew the whole mean… Still though, looks pretty good to me so far — the effect is awfully regular, even for subsamples, so I’m hesitant to blame it on random fluctuations…
I also get the critique that young picks may be riskier. I guess that could be addressed by checking the dispersion of performance for young vs old high-school picks?[/quote]
basically, he’s fitting a continuous function instead of lumping together pick ranges and comparing them head to head. since draft performance tends to be exponentially diminishing, the top couple of picks are going to disproportionately impact your total production. if the first overall pick happened to be a young high schooler more often than an old high schooler, that would make young high schoolers look undervalued, when in actuality, they were valued correctly (and picked first). anyways, that was what hit me intuitively after skimming the article, and seems to be the take over at the book as well. all that said, i didn’t read it too closely.
I’ve always figured the HS vs college thing was just an issue of variance. Too lazy to read those studies/critiques but I’m guessing the bias is that the best HS players tend to get drafted so college is drawing from a smaller talent pool. College players are easier to project because they’re older and have a bigger sample, but in general they don’t have as much talent because they weren’t good enough to be given an offer they couldn’t refuse coming out of HS. Of course, that’s a general statement and there are always exceptions (see Prior, Mark)
[quote name=Berselius]I’ve always figured the HS vs college thing was just an issue of variance. Too lazy to read those studies/critiques but I’m guessing the bias is that the best HS players tend to get drafted so college is drawing from a smaller talent pool. College players are easier to project because they’re older and have a bigger sample, but in general they don’t have as much talent because they weren’t good enough to be given an offer they couldn’t refuse coming out of HS. Of course, that’s a general statement and there are always exceptions (see Prior, Mark)[/quote]
i’ve heard keith law make the argument recently that the advantage of taking college players has gone away bc teams are throwing so much money at high schoolers in the later rounds, not sure if that can be backed up, though.
Not sure if this has been posted: http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/redsox/extras/extra_bases/2011/10/source_talks_pr.html
[quote name=hotstovecubbies]Sources: The compensation talk for Theo Epstein has heated up with a resolution done by Tuesday(the day before the WS). #Cubs #WorldSeries
….
Sources: The #Cubs will not have to give up Brett Jackson but there has been talk about Szczur, Baker, Jay Jackson, and Ryan Flaherty.
[/quote].
Resolution done by Tuesday? That’s going out on a limb considering the WS starts after that. I’m guessing the source for the second one is Carrie Muskat’s tweet and a little common sense.
The interesting thing to me is that there has to be a resolution 7 days after being granted permission to talk to the employee. Obviously the Cubs/Sox have gotten some kind of extension, but I doubt it was forever. I’m guessing they only have a couple days before they can reach an agreement or it falls through.
[quote name=mb21]The interesting thing to me is that there has to be a resolution 7 days after being granted permission to talk to the employee. Obviously the Cubs/Sox have gotten some kind of extension, but I doubt it was forever. I’m guessing they only have a couple days before they can reach an agreement or it falls through.[/quote]Or maybe the compensation talks don’t count as part of the 7 days. Like, they’ve finished talking with the employee and are now talking with the employer.
[quote name=mb21]Resolution done by Tuesday? That’s going out on a limb considering the WS starts after that. I’m guessing the source for the second one is Carrie Muskat’s tweet and a little common sense.[/quote]
could be, no idea who he is. his previous tweets seem to be in the neighborhood of what other people have said later. also seems to do a fair amount of retweeting, so he’s not completely ripping other people off (dying laughing)
[quote name=Suburban kid]Or maybe the compensation talks don’t count as part of the 7 days. Like, they’ve finished talking with the employee and are now talking with the employer.[/quote]Didn’t think about that, but it makes a lot of sense.
phil rogers speculated that mlb told the teams to take their time, setting up a monday or tuesday announcement in the window between the series
[quote name=GW]could be, no idea who he is. his previous tweets seem to be in the neighborhood of what other people have said later. also seems to do a fair amount of retweeting, so he’s not completely ripping other people off (dying laughing)[/quote]No, I didn’t mean to make it sound like I was being critical of him. I’d have said the same thing regardless of who tweeted those. There are some thing we know and some things we don’t know. I could come up with a series of tweets based on what we know that would seem more than plausible. I think some people do that. I think some journalists do that.
new shit: http://www.obstructedview.net/chicago-cubs/articles/bill-james-expected-rbi.html