Cool Hand Lucroy

So, let me say that I think Mercer is really good. They beat Florida Gulf Coast (and should have beaten them last year--playing on their home floor in their tourney championship). They've got three big guys who can score inside and defend, and Langston Hall is a stud. I thought about picking them. But Duke was playing in Raleigh. With, by far, the two best players on the floor. This is why the tournament is so awesome. Even when you have a GREAT mid-major like Mercer, it's hard to see them being able to play well enough to beat a team as good as Duke. And they did. They played perfectly. In fact, they were better. Duke looked like the mid, relying as much as they did on the three. What a fun game to watch. Screw the brackets, right? You just don't have nearly as much fun rooting for yourself. Give me chaos and a wasted 10 bucks any day.

I think UW got a great draw overall. American could very well hang around for a half or so, but the Badgers have so much offensive talent. Oregon and BYU can both score, but Wisconsin can win games like that, I think. I think Creighton is a great matchup as well. They just do not defend anyone. What a weird year. Never thought I'd think about the Badgers being able to outscore some of the best offensive teams in the country. I think this team showed some toughness against MSU, despite the losing effort, so hopefully that (the toughness) carries over. SDSU and Arizona are, I think, really good and would be really tough to beat. If they play each other, it will be an absolute war. In short, great draw, I think. I really hope Nigel and Frank play well. If they do, this team can beat anyone.

Just thought I'd take a look at some potential match-ups for UW in round 1, assuming they get a 2, which looks like the most likely scenario. I know the committee can move teams up or down a line depending on bracketing principles, but I think the 15 and 16 seeds will be pretty set (though I suppose it's possible a "true 14" gets moved to a 15 because of some rule or other). Here's how I'd do it. 16s: Coastal Carolina, Albany, Mt. Saint Mary's, Texas Southern, Big West winner (CS-Northridge/Cal Poly), Wofford (Assuming no other upsets in conference tourneys, I think those six have the weakest profiles. I suppose one could argue Milwaukee over Wofford based on the Terriers having a tough schedule. Weber St. would be a potential candidate as well). 15s: Weber St., Milwaukee, Eastern Kentucky, American I think there is a BIG gap between even the 15s and 14s, as NC Central, North Dakota St., Mercer, and Manhattan can all do certain things very well. I think there will be a lot of quality at 12-14 from the "mids." Of the 15s, the Badgers can't play EKU or UWM, as they've played them already this year. Again, this might be a rule that gets bent, but without a giant, 16-team conference filling out an eighth of the field, I don't think the committee will be boxed in by bracket rules. That leaves Weber (who UW beat by 8 in '03) and American. Of the two, I'd much prefer Weber, as American defends well and just grinds and grinds and grinds. It'd would likely be a low possession affair (unless UW can push tempo) and an off-shooting night would mean trouble. I don't see the Badgers losing in round one. This team is too complete and has too many offensive weapons, and I think its defensive struggles would be less likely to matter against any 15. If they slide to a 3, which would really surprise me at this point, some of the 14s have slash guards that might cause problems. We'll see. Of the 7-10 line type teams, I'd love to see someone like Lunardi's Gonzaga-Colorado matchup. I'd want no part of a team like Pitt or VCU. UMass, Baylor, Oregon, and Arizona State don't scare me that much.

I think it has a lot to do with $$$. Even this year's version of the Big East is going to outspend Horizon schools by a HUGE margin. The great thing about the new BE is that these are all basketball-first schools, which might actually be a sustainable model for college athletics. I'm skeptical of the football bubble being able to sustain itself for much longer, especially if rights fees continue to climb. We'll see, I guess. By weird bracketing paradox, I think it's actually better for the Horizon if UW-M gets slotted in the play-in. Won't happen, but those schools get a chance to win an NCAA tournament game, which is important for the cash that gets distributed to the conference members. For the small leagues, that can make a major difference. Look how Gonzaga's success has lifted the overall quality of the WCC, or how some sustained runs from Xavier and Temple can help out the A-10, enough that it's still churning out quality hoops even after their departure. A 15 is probably most likely, so hopefully they get a friendly draw. Of the teams in the hunt, Virginia might be the best matchup simply because they'll probably play a low-possession game. Creighton might be a decent draw as well. No one can stop McDermott, but the Jays can't really stop anybody, so if Wragge and co. have an off-shooting night, then anything's possible.

Lincoln will be nuts tonight. It will be a good test for Bucky. A win there, and I think this team will display some serious focus, which is important in March. I love watching these smaller conference tournaments and tend to hope for the best team to win so as to maximize the bottom of the bracket strength. So far, Harvard will be dangerous. I think Eastern Kentucky beating Belmont was a surprise, but they've got a lot of experience (as opposed to Belmont, who turned over most of their roster) and shoot the three. If they get placed at 15, that's a tough matchup for some teams. Harvard will be a tough out as well. Green Bay losing was disappointing. They're a fringe bubble contender at best, I'd say. The down Horizon League did them no favors. In previous years, it would still be close, but they could have counted on a stronger non-con performance from Cleveland St. or Valpo. They just didn't seem to match up well with Milwaukee, who beat them twice at the Resch this year. Wright State is top 40 Defensive team via KenPom, so we'll see how the Panthers handle it.

Kenpom isnt used by the committee. RPI is their computer ranking of choice. Kenpom may be better but it is mostly irrelevant in tourney seeding discussion. There is zero way the Badgers are lower than a 4 seed right now. They are much closer to a 2 than 5 and probably closer to a 2 than a 4. Louisville has no reason to be ahead of the Badgers. They are 1-3 against the RPI top 25 and just 4-4 against the top 50. The Badgers are 6-2 and 8-3. Louisville has an RPI of 35 going into today. The same for Virginia. 1-3 and 3-3 against the RPI top 25 and 50. Head to head loss to Wisconsin. RPI of 17 compared to 5. They dont have as bad of losses but that does not make up for UNC being their big win, followed by Pitt than SMU. That is nothing compared to Florida, MSU, Iowa twice, Michigan, St Louis, and Virginia Zona, Cuse, Florida, Wichita State, Duke, and Kansas are the only teams for sure ahead of Wisconsin. SDSU probably is but their computer numbers are not good at all. MSU all depends on how much the committee factors in injuries but their resume does not compare well with UW. Nova and Creighton are right there. So I think the Badgers are a solid 3 who has a strong case for a 2. If only they would have had a key injury during the losing streak to blame it on My understanding of the selection process, especially the way it's played out over the last few years, is that a team's RPI isn't nearly as important as the RPI of its opponents. This is how "team sheets" are organized. How did you vs. the top 50? 51-100? 101-50? Etc. This would bode well for Wisconsin, certainly. Things seem to have broken well for a possible 2 this weekend, and I'd agree that a 3 is more likely than a 4 at this point. In the end, I stand by that I think the win yesterday was all about securing a top 4 seed. Those are the "protected" lines, and so there is a much smaller difference between a 3 and 4 and a 4 and 5. I think what would hurt the Badgers most is finishing 3rd or 4th in the league. I know the committee says they don't look at conference affiliation, but if MSU and Michigan both finish with better conference records and then beat UW in the conference tourney? Well, let's hope it doesn't happen. With the right draw, this team can do a lot of damage, especially if Frank continues to play as well as he has and Dekker continues to improve defensively.

Agreed on hoping for a split and then getting two big road wins. Looking at the teams at the top, I know UW has maybe the most impressive collection of wins. Still, Syracuse, Florida, Arizona, and Wichita look pretty good for ones to me. Duke, Kansas, Louisville, and a healthy Michigan State as twos? Maybe there's room for Creighton and/or San Diego State as well? Ken Pom also has Villanova and Virginia ahead of UW and UCLA right behind. Basically, there are a lot of teams with low 2 through high 4 seed potential. I guess defining that separation is what conference tourneys are all about. I don't think the committee could put the Badgers lower than a 4 at this point, but I also don't necessarily see a two as likely. I'd be happy with a three, but, of course, it will be all about matchups no matter the number next to their name...

Huge game today for Wisconsin. I think they'd probably be solidly on the 4 line win or lose, but I'm of the belief that there's a big difference between a 4 and 5, and today is another opportunity to pick up a huge road win. I was rooting for Marquette on Thursday, but, man, is McDermott good. He is an efficiency monster, and when he puts up 25 it just feels like business as usual. Barring injuries, he's going to get 3,000 points for his career, which is saying something for a guy who wasn't even the best player on his high school team (Harrison Barnes). He's got to be the poster child for college development, and I would be shocked if he wasn't a solid pro (role player). If I had any faith at all in Creighton's D, I'd be writing them into the Sweet Sixteen.

The Canadian men & women won gold in curling. Current medal count: USA: 9 G, 7 S, 11 B Canada: 9 G, 10 S, 5 B Understanding that Canada wins a lot of medals at the winter games, I think hockey is and will always be the top priority, both emotionally and financially. Yes, they have other talented athletes, but most of the conversation from their camp (outside the official Olympic committee) is that the hockey gold matters more than any of the other sports. I'd be willing to bet they'd trade every other medal every Olympiad if it meant they'd win hockey golds. It may not be all they have, but losing to the US yesterday would have caused more consternation than winning anything else would have created joy. Beat Finland!

Canada is loaded everywhere, but their defensemen are especially good. It's a depth thing at this point, Kessel's line, as well as the Parise-Kane combo held their own, I thought, and Suter can play with anyone in the world. The issue is that Canada has that at every position, Jamie Benn scoring the winner today being the exhibit A (almost didn't make the roster). Honestly, I think USA men's hockey has come a LONG way in the last 20 years. Don't forget that Canada has this and nothing else. It's a little like soccer in Brazil. Every generation is a golden generation. As much as it sucks to lose today (and look outclassed), I think the US being in medal contention is a big step forward, and the increasing number of American NHL stars can only bode well for the future of American hockey. Hope they bounce back and take a medal tomorrow. When they do get another shot at the gold, I hope Parise's still around. I feel like he deserves it.

Yeah, what a big road win. Great to see them pull away after Michigan roared back. The defense has played A LOT better lately, and that bodes well for success in the tourney. I have no doubt this team will score.

My concern with the Badgers, even in this good stretch, has become their ability to close. I thought T-Jack's jumper against MSU was awesome, but also a bit of a bail out after they let a lead slip away late. Same thing last night with letting Minnesota chip away at a big lead (though the Gophs did hit some tough shots). And it cost them earlier vs. Ohio State as well. The next two will be major tests. Iowa's system is a nightmare for Wisconsin, it seems. I really thought this team had the stuff to be Bo's best team, but, as the season's wore on, I'm nervous about the toughness factor. Can they get big stops and points in the paint down the stretch? It seems to be improving, but it's not there yet. Looking forward to another nationally televised game on Sunday.

Enjoying the whole thing so far. Really looking forward to USA-Russia bright and early tomorrow morning. The curling teams have disappointed, but there's nothing really like Olympic Hockey.

I agree for the most part, especially in terms of specifics. What I think PrinceFielder might be onto, though, is the big picture financial health of the organization. I think it's important to recognize that year-to-year profit figures aren't, generally speaking, going to make a huge difference in Mark A's investment. I've always felt that baseball teams operate a lot like blue-chip stocks. Their value will not increase every day, but, over the long haul, they'll appreciate significantly. From a fan perspective, I think the thing to do is ask: Looking at the next 3-5 year period, is this team overextended financially in terms of its contract commitments? Right now, I think the Brewers are doing pretty well by this measure.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but, according to Cot's, it looks like this contract is going to put the Brewers' Opening Day payroll at right around $100 mil, which feels more significant than it probably is, at least taking into consideration the new baseball economy. Maybe we're just at the point where a nice depth move costs 3.25 mil. Like others have said, I don't really see a lot of risk here, and it seems likely K-Rod will help the team this year. If he has even a small role in keeping this team in contention in late summer and early fall, then it's absolutely worth it.

I do wonder if Lepay's stint on FSWI might be a sort of a (hopefully VERY premature) audition for something Brewers Radio related in the future. He's got the voice for it and sure seems to me like Mr. Wisconsin. It's the Mr. Baseball part that will be impossible to replicate...

Not sure if this has been posted here: http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/spending-50-million-on-very-different-pitchers/ Interesting article comparing Garza and Ricky Nolasco. Key point for this discussion: The article translates Garza's health history into an estimate of time he's likely to miss, arguing, in part, that fewer, better-quality innings, beats out more, lower-quality innings. There's also the suggestion that the current pitching market overvalues durability. A very good read.

Really good discussion all around. I wonder, am I missing something on Thornburg? Not to say he isn't a nice player to have, but are folks really suggesting that, when healthy, Garza isn't a big upgrade? Granted, he might not be healthy, but then you've got Thornburg pitching. I guess I just don't see this move "blocking" anyone who's really earned MLB starts at this point. I could be wrong. I ask with all sincerity, what do others see in Thornburg that I'm not considering?

I think the results we got this time were pretty darn good, and I don't think a purely fan vote is the answer. I am in agreement with some here, though, in that the process as its constructed allows for a lot of inconsistency. Some of this is unavoidable. But one easy fix (advocated by Jonah Keri over at Grantland) is just to remove the ten player limit. Perhaps the biggest reason for complaint comes from folks who get dropped off the ballot for failing to get 5% in a particularly strong year. Say you're Moises Alou. I don't think he's a Hall of Famer, but I think he's a lot close than 1.1 percent of the vote. Now, after one year, he's gone. The same goes for Palmeiro and even Luis Gonzalez. Guys with some good numbers, some great seasons, and certainly some major flaws as well. But they're pushed out of the conversation before it even takes off (Palmeiro was done in more by his finger-wagging embarrassment than anything--there really isn't another way to explain guys like Sosa and McGwire getting so much more of the vote). Removing the limit at least gives voters that extra wiggle room in a great year. Albert Belle is another example. Never got the requisite vote numbers to remain on the ballot. Kirby Puckett, with similar if slightly better career numbers, was a first ballot guy. Personality has to be an issue there, and maybe it should be. But, at the very least, it's inconsistently applied. A great player who gets along with the writers is much more likely to be voted in than a jerk with similar numbers. These aren't life or death issues. But I do think the flaws in this system correspond to the more general flaws in the sports media (and even in the news media). Certain values get prized, certain criteria are inconsistently applied, and what you get is a flawed consensus about what a career or a story or a number means. The trouble isn't that the consensus is flawed. It's that it seems to inevitably become the dominant narrative.

Great post, Bombers. Regarding the voting portion of the BBWA, I think some of your points illustrate the systemic flaws of the process. One issue is that the national writers get to watch a lot of games, but a lot of the time it's the same teams. We don't need to talk about media bias regarding the big markets, but I think it's a problem. When your job is to attract readers, why would your publication want you spending time watching and studying the Rays, for example? Where's the money? Then there are the beat writers who focus all their attention on one team. This means they get a lot to see a lot of games, but are heavily predisposed toward one league or the other. And often working to connect with a particular fan base. In both cases, I think the writer in question is only getting part of the picture. This isn't to say that there aren't awesome, knowledgeable voters out there. Just to note that it takes a lot of effort to go beyond your specific job description and research a larger, more nuanced picture. This is what makes the Deadspin thing interesting to me. Sites like Fangraphs can get pretty creative about "crowdsourcing" and produce some darn good information precisely because they are outside the mainstream media. They can also put the perspectives of individual fans in conversation with each other and give an active reader a whole lot to think about. I'm not sure the BBWA is really set up to do that. Eventually, the younger generation of writers will likely bring more knowledge of advanced metrics, but, unless the system changes, they'll still be part of a traditional media structure. I think that's a problem for the Hall.

I like it too. Plus it's pretty funny to see the ESPN guys quickly try to tear LeBatard down. PTI was pretty all over it today, and so far the internal ESPN stuff has all been negative. Which doesn't surprise me. And, of course, there are plenty of reasons to disagree with "giving away" a vote, but all the negativity isn't really acknowledging some of the deep flaws in the voting process. It's soundbite coverage at its worst.

Biggio missed by two votes (74.8 percent). Not a huge deal, as I'm sure he'll be in next time, but wow. He's a guy that WAR might not quantify well, as he's "only" at 62 for his career. Of the guys in contention, only Piazza and Morris are lower. Anyway. No real gripes with the three who did get in. Though I have to wonder if Maddux and Glavine ever get frustrated by always being mentioned together. I always thought Maddux was the better player, and Baseball Reference seems to bear that out, though maybe I'm just buying into the pathos of "the guy who doesn't throw hard and still gets outs." EDIT: Just saw that Deadspin "bought" Dan LeBatard's ballot (or, that is, LeBatard agreed to turn over his vote to Deadspin readers) in an attempt to publicize some criticisms of the process. Interesting.

This is all really helpful. Thanks, folks!

Hey Everyone, If this belongs elsewhere, feel free to move it. I'm considering purchasing an MLB.tv subscription for the 2014 season. To those of you who have subscribed, I'm curious about the functionality of the audio features. I've subscribed to Gameday Audio for the last two years because I've lived outside of Ueck range and enjoy the radio broadcasts (plus it's nice to check out other teams' play-by-play guys). Does a basic subscription enable one to overlay the radio broadcast with the MLB.tv visuals? Or do you need a premium subscription for that? If you can overlay it, is there an issue with timing? That is, is one broadcast substantially ahead of/behind the other? Any help would be appreciated, as I'm trying to weigh the benefits of MLB.tv vs. just another year of Gameday Audio. Thanks!

Badgers get Illinois tomorrow, and they've been playing well lately. Lots better than the team that lost to Georgia Tech in December. I think Wisconsin wins, but this is one of those "we're in the Big Ten" now. And home games are not as homey during break. Hopefully there's no "let down." Be nice to see T-Jack make some better decisions.