Wednesday, March 30, 2011
My thoughts on the 2011 New York Mets
I know there is a bad feeling surrounding the Mets with the whole Madoff thing and Johan Santana getting hurt, but I'm getting why everyone is putting the Mets in bottom tier of baseball. Sports Illustrated even went as far as to predict them finishing below Washington in the NL East. I'm sorry but tell me what Washington did to get out of the NL East basement. Jayson Werth? My friends and I would discuss how someone is going to make the mistake of giving Werth a ton of money to anchor an offense. Losing a guy like Adam Dunn hurts their lineup more than getting a Jayson Werth. But this isn't about Washington.
I've seen Vegas win totals range anywhere from 74 to 76. I'll happily take the over and be on my way. I'm a pessimistic fan at heart but last year was a disaster season for the Mets and they still won 79 games and I don't know how you look at this year's team and don't think they are going to be better. Santana being out is a blow but I don't think that alot of the "question marks" going in to the season are going to play out in favor of the Mets:
Jose Reyes: I'm a big believer in the contract year. Unfortunately I do not think Reyes will be a Met next year because they won't be able to afford him
Carlos Beltran: He definately not going to be a Met next year but he is also playing for one more big contract. I think Beltran is soft and could have played through some of his injuries and didn't. If this was any other year, do you really think he'd be pressing for Opening Day. I expect him to be in the lineup throughout the year.
Jason Bay: Granted, he just got hurt and we don't know the extent yet but I'm going under the assumption that it's going to be a 15 DL stint and he's back. Bay will never be a 30+ homerun guy at CitiField but he is a professional and in a way his season was very much like Beltran's first season. It's tough to remember now but he put up some solid seasons after he got used to New York. Bay is going to be fine.
Brad Emaus: Addition by subtraction. He has to be better than Luis Castillo.
Josh Thole: I don't consider him a question mark. He's decent enough putting the bat on the ball but he's not here to be an offensive catcher.
The Pitching Staff: It's lacking the number 1 with Santana out but Pelfrey is solid, Niese should be acclimated with a full season in the big leagues and not fade down the stretch again, R.A. Dickey...ok...I consider him a question mark. He pitched over his head last year. Even if his ERA is a run higher I'll take it this year. They are injury risks but Chris Young and Chris Capuano have been solid MLB starter in their career. Coming to CitiField is the perfect spot for them to resurrect their careers. I don't imagine they'll both stay healthy for the whole year but only one of them has to make it until Santana comes backs.
Bullpen: I'm not too worried about K-Rod. He was on his way to having a solid season before it got derailed. Bullpens are crapshoots year to year. It feels good to be rid of the Raul Valdez and Fernando Nieve types. The Mets were right not to re-sign Pedro Feliciano. Jerry Manuel worked him in to the ground the last few years and he's already starting the season on the DL with the Yankees.
I'm not saying the Mets are going to compete for a Wild Card or anything but all these magazines and websites are putting the Mets down with the dregs of Major League Baseball. The Madoff this has cast a black cloud over the franchise right now but it shouldn't have a direct effect on what happens between the lines. I'm pencilling them down for 82 wins, 1 game above the Marlins for 3rd in the NL East.
I've seen Vegas win totals range anywhere from 74 to 76. I'll happily take the over and be on my way. I'm a pessimistic fan at heart but last year was a disaster season for the Mets and they still won 79 games and I don't know how you look at this year's team and don't think they are going to be better. Santana being out is a blow but I don't think that alot of the "question marks" going in to the season are going to play out in favor of the Mets:
Jose Reyes: I'm a big believer in the contract year. Unfortunately I do not think Reyes will be a Met next year because they won't be able to afford him
Carlos Beltran: He definately not going to be a Met next year but he is also playing for one more big contract. I think Beltran is soft and could have played through some of his injuries and didn't. If this was any other year, do you really think he'd be pressing for Opening Day. I expect him to be in the lineup throughout the year.
Jason Bay: Granted, he just got hurt and we don't know the extent yet but I'm going under the assumption that it's going to be a 15 DL stint and he's back. Bay will never be a 30+ homerun guy at CitiField but he is a professional and in a way his season was very much like Beltran's first season. It's tough to remember now but he put up some solid seasons after he got used to New York. Bay is going to be fine.
Brad Emaus: Addition by subtraction. He has to be better than Luis Castillo.
Josh Thole: I don't consider him a question mark. He's decent enough putting the bat on the ball but he's not here to be an offensive catcher.
The Pitching Staff: It's lacking the number 1 with Santana out but Pelfrey is solid, Niese should be acclimated with a full season in the big leagues and not fade down the stretch again, R.A. Dickey...ok...I consider him a question mark. He pitched over his head last year. Even if his ERA is a run higher I'll take it this year. They are injury risks but Chris Young and Chris Capuano have been solid MLB starter in their career. Coming to CitiField is the perfect spot for them to resurrect their careers. I don't imagine they'll both stay healthy for the whole year but only one of them has to make it until Santana comes backs.
Bullpen: I'm not too worried about K-Rod. He was on his way to having a solid season before it got derailed. Bullpens are crapshoots year to year. It feels good to be rid of the Raul Valdez and Fernando Nieve types. The Mets were right not to re-sign Pedro Feliciano. Jerry Manuel worked him in to the ground the last few years and he's already starting the season on the DL with the Yankees.
I'm not saying the Mets are going to compete for a Wild Card or anything but all these magazines and websites are putting the Mets down with the dregs of Major League Baseball. The Madoff this has cast a black cloud over the franchise right now but it shouldn't have a direct effect on what happens between the lines. I'm pencilling them down for 82 wins, 1 game above the Marlins for 3rd in the NL East.
Thursday, March 17, 2011
2010 NCAA Tournament Picks - Real 1st round (Thursday Edition)
Clemson vs. West Virginia (-2.5) - Clemson did look good in the Play-In game (it'll always be a play in game to me) but I'm choosing to think that it was more of UAB laying an egg. ACC was down this year and Clemson was average most of the year.
Old Dominion (-2.5) vs. Butler - I think this spread is as close as it is because of the Butler name. ODU is beating Pitt next round too.
Morehead State vs. Louisville (-9.5) - I'm as high on Kenny Faried as anyone but everytime I bet on a mid-major against a major conference school I get burned. I'm actually not going to bet this for real since I want to root for Morehead.
Penn State (+3) vs. Temple - I'm not betting this one either. But Penn State was locking people down in the Big 10 Tourney.
Princeton (+13.5) vs. Kentucky - I'll probably take the Princeton 1st half line instead of the game but I have a feeling Princeton will be up at the half.
UNC-Asheville vs. Pittsburgh (-18) - Took Asheville long enough on Tuesday. Pitt will roll,
Richmond (+3) vs. Vanderbilt - Richmond is winning this game outright.
Northern Colorado (+15.5) vs. San Diego State - I'm a little worried about Mountain West teams. San Diego State will win but I think this is the 2 seed that gets the scare in the first 2 days.
UCSB vs. Florida (-13) - You can tell me about Orlando Johnson all you want but one player does not make a team. The thing that worries me is that the line does look a little low. Almost trap like
Wofford (+13) vs. BYU - BYU has been in trouble since the suspension and I really think Wofford has a shot to win this game outright.
Bucknell (+10) vs. UConn - I think UConn will pull it out but remember what happened to Syracuse after their magical run the Big East tourney a few years ago?
Belmont (+5) vs. Wisconsin - Belmont is a solid. Take the moneyline
Michigan State (1.5) vs. UCLA - Because I'm in idiot.
Gonzaga vs. St. John's (-1.5) - Yes DJ Kennedy is out but Sacre is soft and I think the rest of the seniors are going to #DOITFORDJ
Missouri (+1) vs. Cincinnati - Good luck against that pressure with 1 legit point guard Cincy.
Utah State (+2.5) vs. Kansas State - K-State is inconsistant and Utah State can D up. I like Utah State to win this game.
For the record - Kansas, Ohio State, Florida and Texas
Kansas over Ohio State
Old Dominion (-2.5) vs. Butler - I think this spread is as close as it is because of the Butler name. ODU is beating Pitt next round too.
Morehead State vs. Louisville (-9.5) - I'm as high on Kenny Faried as anyone but everytime I bet on a mid-major against a major conference school I get burned. I'm actually not going to bet this for real since I want to root for Morehead.
Penn State (+3) vs. Temple - I'm not betting this one either. But Penn State was locking people down in the Big 10 Tourney.
Princeton (+13.5) vs. Kentucky - I'll probably take the Princeton 1st half line instead of the game but I have a feeling Princeton will be up at the half.
UNC-Asheville vs. Pittsburgh (-18) - Took Asheville long enough on Tuesday. Pitt will roll,
Richmond (+3) vs. Vanderbilt - Richmond is winning this game outright.
Northern Colorado (+15.5) vs. San Diego State - I'm a little worried about Mountain West teams. San Diego State will win but I think this is the 2 seed that gets the scare in the first 2 days.
UCSB vs. Florida (-13) - You can tell me about Orlando Johnson all you want but one player does not make a team. The thing that worries me is that the line does look a little low. Almost trap like
Wofford (+13) vs. BYU - BYU has been in trouble since the suspension and I really think Wofford has a shot to win this game outright.
Bucknell (+10) vs. UConn - I think UConn will pull it out but remember what happened to Syracuse after their magical run the Big East tourney a few years ago?
Belmont (+5) vs. Wisconsin - Belmont is a solid. Take the moneyline
Michigan State (1.5) vs. UCLA - Because I'm in idiot.
Gonzaga vs. St. John's (-1.5) - Yes DJ Kennedy is out but Sacre is soft and I think the rest of the seniors are going to #DOITFORDJ
Missouri (+1) vs. Cincinnati - Good luck against that pressure with 1 legit point guard Cincy.
Utah State (+2.5) vs. Kansas State - K-State is inconsistant and Utah State can D up. I like Utah State to win this game.
For the record - Kansas, Ohio State, Florida and Texas
Kansas over Ohio State
Wednesday, March 16, 2011
2011 NCAA Tournament Picks - First 4 Games (Friday Edition)
(16) Alabama State vs (16) UT-San Antonio
I was actually all over Alabama State in the SWAC tourney even though they were the 4 seed. They were some like 8-1 going in their last 9 going in to it and proceeded to roll. UT-San Antonio on the other hand had a lackluster end to the regular season and won close games in their tournament. But here is where I try to talk myself out of Alabama State:
The Southland and SWAC finished Conference RPI averages that put them 29 and 31 respectively. But the actual RPI number was a pretty big discrepancy. The difference in conference RPI was roughly the equivalent of the difference between the PAC-10 and MAAC. Check the math. Alabama State had an RPI of 263 and UT-San Antonio was 196.
Couldn't do it. I'm taking the Hornets and pumped I'm getting points
Alabama State +3
The song doesn't even have the word Hornets in it but still.
(11) VCU vs (11) USC
I've learned my leasson from last night. I took UAB because they probably shouldn't have been in the tournament and thought they'd be fired up. USC is bigger and more athletic and that's going to be good enough for me. One day too late.
USC -4
I was actually all over Alabama State in the SWAC tourney even though they were the 4 seed. They were some like 8-1 going in their last 9 going in to it and proceeded to roll. UT-San Antonio on the other hand had a lackluster end to the regular season and won close games in their tournament. But here is where I try to talk myself out of Alabama State:
The Southland and SWAC finished Conference RPI averages that put them 29 and 31 respectively. But the actual RPI number was a pretty big discrepancy. The difference in conference RPI was roughly the equivalent of the difference between the PAC-10 and MAAC. Check the math. Alabama State had an RPI of 263 and UT-San Antonio was 196.
Couldn't do it. I'm taking the Hornets and pumped I'm getting points
Alabama State +3
The song doesn't even have the word Hornets in it but still.
(11) VCU vs (11) USC
I've learned my leasson from last night. I took UAB because they probably shouldn't have been in the tournament and thought they'd be fired up. USC is bigger and more athletic and that's going to be good enough for me. One day too late.
USC -4
Tuesday, March 15, 2011
2011 NCAA Tournament Picks: First 4 Games (Thursday Edition)
First Four Games (Tuesday Edition):
(16) UNC-Asheville vs (16) Arkansas-Little Rock
UNC-Asheville -4
I'm not going to lie. I've seen each of these teams play once this year each. I'm going to base my picks lightly on the eye ball test and some numbers. The Big South and Sun Belt are right next to each other in Conference RPI so Asheville going 11-7 in the Big South is more impressive than Arkansas-Little Rock going 7-9 in the Sun Belt. As a matter of fact, before Little Rock ran off the 4 wins they were a sub .500 team on the season and which would be 8th in the conference if they weren't split into 2 divisions. Asheville was the beneficiary of some good luck in their conference tournament. Coastal Carolina did not have their best player throughout the tournament and you'd have to think that they would have won the tournament if Desmond Holloway was available. That being said, they did have to beat Coastal in the final on their home floor and did so handily. I'm going to go with UNC-Asheville giving the 4. They won their last 3 games going in to the tournament and winning their tournament games by an average of 13 points.
(12) Clemson vs. (12) UAB
UAB +4
I need less analysis for this game since I've seen these teams play a few times. I believe that Clemson is the better team but UAB has been dumped on by everyone for being included in the tournament. I'm going to bank on that as the motivation for them to win this game outright.
(16) UNC-Asheville vs (16) Arkansas-Little Rock
UNC-Asheville -4
I'm not going to lie. I've seen each of these teams play once this year each. I'm going to base my picks lightly on the eye ball test and some numbers. The Big South and Sun Belt are right next to each other in Conference RPI so Asheville going 11-7 in the Big South is more impressive than Arkansas-Little Rock going 7-9 in the Sun Belt. As a matter of fact, before Little Rock ran off the 4 wins they were a sub .500 team on the season and which would be 8th in the conference if they weren't split into 2 divisions. Asheville was the beneficiary of some good luck in their conference tournament. Coastal Carolina did not have their best player throughout the tournament and you'd have to think that they would have won the tournament if Desmond Holloway was available. That being said, they did have to beat Coastal in the final on their home floor and did so handily. I'm going to go with UNC-Asheville giving the 4. They won their last 3 games going in to the tournament and winning their tournament games by an average of 13 points.
(12) Clemson vs. (12) UAB
UAB +4
I need less analysis for this game since I've seen these teams play a few times. I believe that Clemson is the better team but UAB has been dumped on by everyone for being included in the tournament. I'm going to bank on that as the motivation for them to win this game outright.
After Selection Sunday
Took a few months off to regroup after football season but now it's time to come back for the best sporting event in the world.
Once again, Pete and I tried to predict the brackets before they were announced. This year we missed three teams again. We had Colorado, Alabama and Virginia Tech in the field instead of UAB, VCU and Clemson.
The team with the biggest gripe, in my opinion, is probably Alabama. I have no problem with Georgia being in but I don't see how you put Georgia in and not Alabama when Alabama was 12-4 in the (albeit, weaker half of the) SEC and beat Georgia twice in a week. Plus they do have a win against SEC tourney champ Kentucky.
I like VCU and actually like the fact they made the tournament. But in all honesty, this year, they do not deserve it. I'm a big fan of the Colonial but you can't finish 4th in that conference and be in line for a bid. Pete and I discarded VCU pretty early in the process. Granted they had two good wins against Old Dominion and George Mason in conference but their next highest RPI wins were non-tournament teams Drexel and Wichita State.
I know the committee doesn't look at conferences when comparing teams, but in this case I'm going to compare Clemson and Virginia Tech. The RPIs were close enough that it didn't matter. Clemson did beat Virginia Tech head to head but as showed by Georgia and Alabama, that doesn't matter that much either. Apparently the selection committee was big on playing people outside your conference. If you look at Clemson's non conference SOS it's 206 and Virginia Tech's is 181. Both gross but Virginia Tech should get the nod there. Clemson has zero top 50 wins. Virginia Tech has 2 (Duke and Penn State). I'm not sure about this one.
Pete and I didn't even discuss Colorado. We had them locked in. I think like everyone else we saw them beat Texas, beat Nebraska is a bubble eliminator and beat Kansas State for a 3rd time. Based on those wins it didn't seem necessary to look any further. That's where we were wrong. I do think Colorado passes the eyeball test of a tournament team but you'll have to do alot better than 9-9 in the Big 12 when your non-conference SOS is 331 (comfortably sandwiched between powerhouses South Dakokta State and North Carolina Central). I still probably would have put them in over UAB but I get it. At least UAB won the regular season championship of their conference. Their non-conference SOS was 167 which is still bad but dwarfs Colorado's. They had a better RPI (31 to 66) too. I get the line of thinking but I still would have put Colorado in. The job of the committee is to make the most competitive tournament they can. This feels like a message was being sent.
In order of the 6 teams talked about I would probably have them as Alabama, Virginia Tech, Colorado, UAB, Clemson and VCU if I was to redo my last 3 in, last 3 out.
Once again, Pete and I tried to predict the brackets before they were announced. This year we missed three teams again. We had Colorado, Alabama and Virginia Tech in the field instead of UAB, VCU and Clemson.
The team with the biggest gripe, in my opinion, is probably Alabama. I have no problem with Georgia being in but I don't see how you put Georgia in and not Alabama when Alabama was 12-4 in the (albeit, weaker half of the) SEC and beat Georgia twice in a week. Plus they do have a win against SEC tourney champ Kentucky.
I like VCU and actually like the fact they made the tournament. But in all honesty, this year, they do not deserve it. I'm a big fan of the Colonial but you can't finish 4th in that conference and be in line for a bid. Pete and I discarded VCU pretty early in the process. Granted they had two good wins against Old Dominion and George Mason in conference but their next highest RPI wins were non-tournament teams Drexel and Wichita State.
I know the committee doesn't look at conferences when comparing teams, but in this case I'm going to compare Clemson and Virginia Tech. The RPIs were close enough that it didn't matter. Clemson did beat Virginia Tech head to head but as showed by Georgia and Alabama, that doesn't matter that much either. Apparently the selection committee was big on playing people outside your conference. If you look at Clemson's non conference SOS it's 206 and Virginia Tech's is 181. Both gross but Virginia Tech should get the nod there. Clemson has zero top 50 wins. Virginia Tech has 2 (Duke and Penn State). I'm not sure about this one.
Pete and I didn't even discuss Colorado. We had them locked in. I think like everyone else we saw them beat Texas, beat Nebraska is a bubble eliminator and beat Kansas State for a 3rd time. Based on those wins it didn't seem necessary to look any further. That's where we were wrong. I do think Colorado passes the eyeball test of a tournament team but you'll have to do alot better than 9-9 in the Big 12 when your non-conference SOS is 331 (comfortably sandwiched between powerhouses South Dakokta State and North Carolina Central). I still probably would have put them in over UAB but I get it. At least UAB won the regular season championship of their conference. Their non-conference SOS was 167 which is still bad but dwarfs Colorado's. They had a better RPI (31 to 66) too. I get the line of thinking but I still would have put Colorado in. The job of the committee is to make the most competitive tournament they can. This feels like a message was being sent.
In order of the 6 teams talked about I would probably have them as Alabama, Virginia Tech, Colorado, UAB, Clemson and VCU if I was to redo my last 3 in, last 3 out.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
