Look at Ray Ray Run

Yeah but you dont not sign jD Martinez for that reason. Theres 180+ other games that matter more than 3 games in the WS in which hed have to play left field.

Why would hitters have no chance? Without roster expansion theres zero chance a team could ever go to all relievers and relievers - in general - are worse at pitching than starters. Once you get passed your top 3, it's a bunch of middling arms who bounce productivity wise year to year.

I don't use "ESPN" to evaluate players - I certainly don't base players on one stat or an ESPN made stat (ala Hollingers stats, which are absurd evaluations of talent because the bar John sets for replacement level is SO BAD that it doesn't accurately evaluate a player). For example, Hollinger sets his negative values for FG% around 32% or something (I can't remember the exact number off the top of my head, but that's absurdly low and gives positive production to anyone over that number. There are other examples for why Hollingers stats aren't great that are similar to that point). As I said, I keep an efficiency rating on every player I can, in part of my nightly projections which I change based on projected minutes. Yes, VORP is one of many stats one should consider, but VORP also has its shortcomings - mostly on the defensive side of the ball. Lastly, given that I would classify some of the best centers based on BR as PF's (such as AD who is a PF), I'd say center is the weakest. The only argument for a weaker position is PF if you want to classify someone like AD as a Center. I would argue that though. Embiid is great - as is Jokic and Towns. After that? Based on VORP's values, Vucevic can't defend, and certainly hasn't been a top 10 player in basketball this year. Adams is an elite defender, but offensively he's still not great - but he fits that system. He's not carrying any teams though. Nurkic should be renamed Hackic because he can't play any significant minutes without fouling out of games. Gobert is a monster, but he's still so limited offensively. Capela? Same boat. VORP has Embiid is the 30th best player in the NBA this year - that's absolutely absurd. Basketball's advanced metrics are still in their infancy stage - their motion camera's and trackers have not been made freely available to the public, which slows the progress a bit as well, but I thought basketball would be further around. The problem with player evaluation based on production in basketball is that not all production is equal. This goes back to impact players vs accumulators on bad teams. Separating those two out statistically is difficult which is how you run into Vucevic ranking out significantly higher than someone like Kawhi and Embiid in VORP. Finding accumulators on bad teams who will put it up when given the minutes is important in DFS - someone like Michael Beasley is a good example. Beasley is a bad NBA basketball player, but when he gets run he accumulates stats. Another example is Kenneth Faried - if you give Faried minutes, he will produce numbers but his game impact is typically negative. Separating out the real vs the artificial is the hardest part about advanced metrics in the NBA... once all the tracking information is made more readily available, analytics in basketball will take off.

With his injury history, that would be rather surprising but I guess if he repeats last year and has 3 good ones in a row, it's possible.

This conversation will be pointless by the end of this year following Tim's 4 WAR season.

Cole will get 7 years and 210+.

So point out the fallacies. MCJ would have made more sense for a team that was already constructed to compete - he could have been a decent complimentary player possibly, but he's not going to be an impact player in the NBA. The Bulls need impact players, even if their bust rates are higher. That's just the nature of basketball. The top of the talent totem pole win out more so than in any other game. And no offense pal, but posting truthful commentary about Bulls basketball is rarely well received on message boards full of Bulls fans. Bulls fans (I am one, but I separate fanhood from my analysis) have historically been some of the most delusional in regards to their ability to evaluate their own players. That's not just the fans, but the front office too. The love affairs with guys like Hinrich and Deng - decent NBA basketball players, but far from the stars the fans thought they were. Deng had some years as a ++ and Kirk was a real nice piece, but certainly not a focal point of any Championship team. I joked about it earlier, but no one falls in love with their shitty players quite like the Chicago Bulls. I don't analyze basketball for a living - never claimed otherwise. I do model basketball for DFS, which has been a successful endeavor the past three years... and I model college basketball for betting - I have been doing that for 11 years now. That has gone well for me, but my biggest edges there came in the totals market, not sides. Oh, and I'm not "selling" anything. I'm stating opinions based on relevant data and information. If you want to refute the commentary with quality data analysis, I'm all ears, but I doubt anyone is going to come in here with said information. WCJ is bad. Sexton is bad. One had a ceiling worthy of drafting if you were a lottery team desperate for raw talent (The Bulls) - the other was always going to be a limited NBA player, regardless of his development track.

I couldn't care less what you believe or think pal. WCJ was supposed to be more ready and a safer pick. They both grade out horribly - Sexton grades out poorly at basketball's deepest position while WCJ grades out poorly at basketball's weakest position. If both are bad - which is more likely - at least taking the guy who had star ceiling would have been more defendable. WCJ was never becoming an NBA star. Period.

Yes, and MCJ has shown Jack shit as well but at least with Sexton, there's a glimmer of star ceiling there. Flashes of offensive brilliance. I've questioned his ability to run an offense but great offensive talent is in there. MCJ has a low ceiling and a low floor. Not a good combination. He has been one of the worst centers in basketball this year and its basketballs weakest position currently.

How is that an apology? Do you have a career? I know there have been times where my boss talking less would have been a great thing but it didn't happen and I wasnt going to call him out or tell him to shut it.

K rate normalizes faster than other stats. The high k rate is alarming as I imagine the things hes trying to improve on is making contact. Hopefully he gets more comfortable with his swing and grip and that number starts to turn down.

Kenny is his boss. I don't know about you, but in my career I don't tell my boss to shut up.

Ridiculous takes like the Bulls don't have any real good players and WCJ - one of the worst graded centers in basketball - is bad. Yes, my absurd basketball takes... meanwhile some people think the Bulls are an RJ Barret away from competing for a conference title - those are the brilliant takes we need more of.

Where do I apologize for Hahn? I have been critical of him as well. Critical or everything the Sox have done this off season. At least Rick Hahn has an inkling of professional and respect for his career though. Paxson certainly doesn't have that.

It's fun when people cite batting average as some doomsday stat.

Yes, WCJ is awesome. What was I thinking. Everyone on the bulls is awesome, that's why they continue to get smacked around.

But to return to the 130s of the past with inflation puts them at 160 in payroll today. So they should have room to spend but if they will who knows.

Kluber was traded at 24 years old and started within a year. Bauer similar to giolito as he had a cup of tea in the big leagues before the Sox traded for him. It took bauer 5 years in Cleveland to figure it out and he credits driveline entirely so I'm not sure I'm ready to say Cleveland developed bauer and kluber.

Kluber and Bauer were developed elsewhere. What 4 starters did Cleveland develop?

No. In spring you want to see the ball as long as possible to get your timing down and etc. The deeper you let the ball get, the more you see of it.

SP are creatures of habit. Routines matter to a lot of starters. This is one valid non-analytical thing that teams need to take into account.

Hes not good.

Yes, it was clear to me that eloy was really working on getting ready for the season - letting the ball get real deep before attacking. He was a little late on the fastball but seemed to find his timing today.

Yes, watch approaches and mechanics - not results. Giolito was cy young last spring. Good players will likely work on things they feel they struggle with. Pitchers will some times throw an abnormal amount of a certain pitch that they are developing. Etc Etc.

Not a huge fan as most of the publically available data doesnt really show an advantage but the Rays are sharp and I imagine they have some data supporting it. I just want to point out that the Rays didnt use it with Snell on the mound so based on their data the match up edge is negated if the starter is good. Which makes me think that the bullpen stater in general is worthless if your staff is talented but if you throw out guys who have only 1 or 2 average or + big league pitches, then not letting them see the heart of the order three times helps - heck maybe even 2. The advantage has more to do with the heart and top of the lineup not seeing a starter three times - more than it has to do with righty vs lefty match ups. Limit their exposure to the best hitters while making the hitter see at least 3 arms in 4 at bats. As I said, if your starter is even league average though, might as well scratch the closer starting.