ORS

I don't know. Back then, there were only 16 teams. Now there are 30.

You are trying to make a relative comparision while using absolutes. You are assuming the habits/work ethic of a 1920's Ruth would be the same if he were playing today. I disagree, and I think you need to make a relative assumption re: the player's behavior. If he were playing today, I think it's no stretch to suggest he'd be preparing himself the way players do now. What makes Ruth great is that he was that much better than his peers. I don't disagree that the level of play has improved, but you need to make the assumption that any player would be doing what his peers are doing to be ready to play, regardless of era.

This stretch of games have exposed Duke as pretenders this year. I still enjoy watching this team play more than most recent Duke teams, though, because its a better brand of basketball despite being short on talent.

http://workfarce.files.wordpress.com/2007/10/captainobvious.jpg

Pre-nub? What's that, code for Viagra?

Thanks again for doing this Cape, and I can live with 2-2 and 5-5 when I also get 6-0 and 7-3.

This guy Johnson looks like a potential star if he could bring his game in from the park.

7 footer on the dribble = basketball IQ fail

The knome running the bench-side line (top of your TV screen) has been the one making the most unbalanced calls. FTA - 12 to 2

There is a noticeable difference in the the level of acceptable physical play depending on which side of the court the ball is on.

He went undrafted because he was a shooting guard in a point guard's body. He was very good as a college ball player who showed flashes of brilliance, but how he was regarded had to do with estimations that his body wouldn't be fit with his skills at the next level. Here's his statsheet page.....Gilbert Arenas. EDIT: Actually, he was taken with the 31st pick (2nd pick, 2nd round) by Golden State.

Also, the year they beat that Kansas team was the year they upset the next highest paid (after the Fab 5) and undefeated UNLV Runnin' Rebs. The one Crunch neglected to mention was when they beat an Arizona team with Gilbert Arenas, Richard Jefferson, and Luke Walton (2 all-stars and an NBA regular).

It didn't matter in '90 when UConn was a #1 and lost to Duke, a #3? You own somebody when you beat them by one when you have the Player of the Year and the tournament's MVP (two different players)? Check the matchups, the team with more talent won in all 4 of their matchups, with each going 2-2.

Oh, and I'm really looking forward to Wednesday. Duke at Wake. I'll start thinking this Duke team is more than a team I consider to be fun to watch if they can pull one off in Winston-Salem.

When they had the talent? FTR, since 1990, the schools are 2-2 vs each other in the tournament. UConn lost to the Grant Hill Duke teams. Duke lost to the Rip Hamilton and Gordon/Okafor teams. In other words, they lost when the other teams had their best talent, as one would expect. When both were high seeds, the margins were 3 points or less (with one 1-pt OT game), when Uconn was an 11 vs. Duke's 2, it was a 13 point game, as one would expect. There is no ownership in their tournament history.

This is probably the best Duke "team" in about a decade. This isn't to say it's their most talented team or that it would beat the Battier/Boozer/Williams team, but they move the ball better and get others involved more than the other teams since about the mid-90's. Oh, it's the best their team defense has looked since that Battier team. One of their problems recently has been a strong dependence on one or two players and a stagnant offense when those players run into a good game plan against them. They are getting more people involved and are more dynamic on offense. It's almost like the lack of one outstanding player has made them better than if they had one. I know most of you guys can't stand them, but I don't care. They are more fun to watch than they have been in quite some time.

What a f***ing retarded statement. Baseball is a game where position matters. Accurate evaluations should always include the context of position. The fact that Kent did something positive more than any other HOF second baseman matters, no matter how foolishly you attempt to diminish that accomplishment. Cite your stats, please. You call him deficient at 2B? Back it up. By Rate2 and the limited amount of UZR data at fangraphs, he was average through his prime and up to about the age of 35. Who do you compare him to when you say he doesn't stack up as a hitter? Certainly not other HOF 2B, because if you consider position, like you should, he's in the all-time elite club offensively. The first ballot argument is irrelevant, and more importantly, not the original point you made. You said he wasn't good enough, full stop. Now you are saying he's not good enough for the first ballot. What the f*** does first ballot mean? Either you are good enough, or you aren't. The first ballot issue is just mental masturbatory tool some writers use to inflate their own self-worth.

He gets in, but he not the best hitting 2B of all time. That would be Rogers Hornsby. .358/.434/.577 Forget second base, here's where those rank all-time among all qualified players... #2/#8/#12

What in the hell does this mean? HRs are important, period. No matter what position you play. What you appear to be saying is that is not "expected" from 2B, but that only makes your point worse because it highlights how special it is to get power production from unexpected places. There are 17 2B in the HOF, Kent has 76 more HR than the highest total on the list (301 for Rogers Hornsby). He's average in the field through his prime. He may have been a douchebag, but there's little point to having a HOF if players like Jeff Kent are excluded.

The Forbes evaluations use the phony "revenues" the Sox and Yankees get from their broadcast networks. In recent years it was reported that YES paid the Yankees $60M to broadcast a single season. They've been investigated for this figure being well below the market value of the rights to broadcast their games. Those franchise owned networks are cash cows that just aren't a part of Forbes evaluations, as they are separate entities.

I wouldn't harp on them for being over budget, but the public funding in light of their lavish spending should draw criticism. Stadiums get fasttracked in construction. Here's an example. I worked on the Fresno St. Bulldogs arena in 2002. We started building with 50% complete plans. Structure gets reengineered, mechanical/electrical/plumbing systems get reworked, etc., etc. It typically adds money to the bottom line. I didn't stay to the end because I moved 'cross country, so I can't tell you the magnitude of changes, but being 50% over is not out of this world (depending on how complete the plans were at the start of construction).

Bruce hasn't done much since, but that's a bit unfair, because he was just as good or better before Warner was throwing him the ball. Holt has been just as good or better since. Faulk's first 2000+ yards from scrimmage year (of 4 straight) was his last in Indy.

BSN07, do you type with your schwanz? The only thing without typos/spelling errors are the articles you cut and paste.

Bitch, please. I've been running Jacko through the ringer since before you ever found this place. Join dates: Me - 6/16/05 Jacko (aka TheRivernator) - 1/27/06 You - 8/21/06 So, STFU noob!