Jump to content

drag it

Members
  • Content Count

    354
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    1

Reputation Activity

  1. Like
    drag it reacted to ShakaAloha in Will PSU Defend Their Crown?   
    This is a pretty good analysis, but I disagree with some of your points.  First being that ADS is overrated.  There is no reason why he should be ranked higher than Bravo-Young who beat him twice last season.  If they wrestle again, my money's on Bravo-Young.  To put him down for 2nd place points at NCAA's is a bit aggressive.
    Eierman at #1 is another one where I can see some under-performance.  He has a tough weight with both N. Lee and Rivera in conference and possibly NCAA's.  He could be anywhere between 1-3 at NCAA, but not a lock for 1st by any means.
    Murin at #5 is really high considering he has never placed at NCAA's and is up a weight from last year.  He may AA this year, but it will be lower than 5 imo.
    Young is another one I would be concerned about.  He completely fell apart at Big 10's last year.  
    Kem is the best guy at 174 right now, but Carter is right there imo.
    Brands at 184 might not score any points at NCAA.
    Warner is inconsistent and I'm not sure he places as high as his #4 NCAA ranking.
    I think Kerkvliet outscores Cassiopi.
    Despite the rankings, I have PSU better than Iowa at 133, 184, and 285.  141 is a coin flip.  I also wouldn't be surprised if Bartlett beat/outscored Murin and same for Berge vs. Young.  Beard beating Warner could also happen.  Bottom line is that Iowa is the heavy favorite due to Spencer, but this is a lot closer than you think.   
  2. Like
    drag it got a reaction from Housebuye in Kerkvliet is wrestling   
    Complete with classic Cael quote.  "He was cleared to compete, so he competed."  
    I agree that, although Iowa remains a heavy, heavy favorite, this makes the team race interesting in a way that they it wasn't before, given the first place ceilings that PSU has at 133, 141, 174, 184, and 285. That would be filling the most inside of inside straights, but it is legitimately within the abilities of each of those wrestlers.
  3. Like
    drag it reacted to hammerlockthree in Spencer Lee   
    I know its a nit picky objection, and we are talking in the context of the ultra elite. 
    I could put it this way. If you heard the blanket statement that Kyle Dake was going into overtime, how would you feel about his chances compared to if I told you Lee was headed to overtime. I don't think Taylor is great in a close match either.
  4. Like
    drag it got a reaction from hammerlockthree in Spencer Lee   
    I think WAR would generally be a better way to compare across eras than ERAs, no pun intended :), because ERA is tied to runs scored in the league as a whole, which fluctuates wildly between eras. 
    For instance, ERAs were much lower in the 19teens, because the ball was dead and dirty and hard to see and because Ruth himself hadn't yet transformed the game by demonstrating the possibilities and value of power hitting.  Ruth's 2.01 ERA in 1917 was 7th best in the league that year, but would have won the ERA title every year from 2001-2010.  Similarly the famous "Year of the Pitcher" statistics from 1968, with a higher mound, bigger strike zone, and no hitting background in center field (such as Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA, and Denny McLain's 31 wins) have to be adjusted (downgraded) in comparison to other years; whereas Pedro Martinez's numbers in the 1990s and 2000s have to be adjusted (upgraded) due to the juiced players, juiced balls, and juiced (short fence) ballparks in his time. 
    If you're going by ERA, it's better to go by ERA+, which is adjusted for things like league scoring that year and the park the pitcher played in.  Ruth's career ERA was 2.28, Pedro's was 2.93.  But Pedro was several classes above Ruth as a pitcher.  His career ERA+ was 154 (third best ever behind Rivera and Kershaw), while Ruth's was 122.  (Higher is better, ERA+ compares you to the rest of the league at 100.)  Pedro had an ERA+ over 200 five times, including an absurd 291, the best in history, in the Steroid Central Season of 2000 (he was 1.74; next best AL pitcher was 3.70!).  Ruth's best ERA+ was 158.
    Ruth was third and fifth in WAR among AL pitchers (for pitching value, not overall value which would include his awesome hitting) in 1916 and 1917, the two years he threw over 300 innings (back then a common amount for starters).  And he had a 0.87 World Series ERA including a record for consecutive scoreless innings that lasted 43 years.  That's really good, "all star" quality stuff, definitely not average, and possibly/probably Hall of Fame if he had done it for a career.    
    But he wouldn't seem to have been a likely all time great even if he only pitched his whole career.  Perhaps more Coleman Scott than John Smith, or more Joe Williams than Tom Brands.  
  5. Thanks
    drag it got a reaction from jchapman in Spencer Lee   
    I think WAR would generally be a better way to compare across eras than ERAs, no pun intended :), because ERA is tied to runs scored in the league as a whole, which fluctuates wildly between eras. 
    For instance, ERAs were much lower in the 19teens, because the ball was dead and dirty and hard to see and because Ruth himself hadn't yet transformed the game by demonstrating the possibilities and value of power hitting.  Ruth's 2.01 ERA in 1917 was 7th best in the league that year, but would have won the ERA title every year from 2001-2010.  Similarly the famous "Year of the Pitcher" statistics from 1968, with a higher mound, bigger strike zone, and no hitting background in center field (such as Bob Gibson's 1.12 ERA, and Denny McLain's 31 wins) have to be adjusted (downgraded) in comparison to other years; whereas Pedro Martinez's numbers in the 1990s and 2000s have to be adjusted (upgraded) due to the juiced players, juiced balls, and juiced (short fence) ballparks in his time. 
    If you're going by ERA, it's better to go by ERA+, which is adjusted for things like league scoring that year and the park the pitcher played in.  Ruth's career ERA was 2.28, Pedro's was 2.93.  But Pedro was several classes above Ruth as a pitcher.  His career ERA+ was 154 (third best ever behind Rivera and Kershaw), while Ruth's was 122.  (Higher is better, ERA+ compares you to the rest of the league at 100.)  Pedro had an ERA+ over 200 five times, including an absurd 291, the best in history, in the Steroid Central Season of 2000 (he was 1.74; next best AL pitcher was 3.70!).  Ruth's best ERA+ was 158.
    Ruth was third and fifth in WAR among AL pitchers (for pitching value, not overall value which would include his awesome hitting) in 1916 and 1917, the two years he threw over 300 innings (back then a common amount for starters).  And he had a 0.87 World Series ERA including a record for consecutive scoreless innings that lasted 43 years.  That's really good, "all star" quality stuff, definitely not average, and possibly/probably Hall of Fame if he had done it for a career.    
    But he wouldn't seem to have been a likely all time great even if he only pitched his whole career.  Perhaps more Coleman Scott than John Smith, or more Joe Williams than Tom Brands.  
  6. Haha
    drag it reacted to NJDan in Spencer Lee   
    Also, the entire world was weak all those times he won world titles.
  7. Like
    drag it reacted to Major Kong in Northwestern at Minnesota   
    6 tight matches could have gone either way. Trounced on the scoreboard maybe, but close on the mat. Deakin and Steveson show up like No. 1's. Deakin made Lee look ordinary.
  8. Like
    drag it reacted to Antitroll2828 in Penn State at Ohio State   
    Is Ohio states mat smaller than other teams? Seems like anything near the edge ends up on the wood floor 
  9. Like
    drag it reacted to bracketbuster in Penn State at Ohio State   
    Welp. 1 match in and I was wrong once. Feel free to disregard the rest of this post.
  10. Like
    drag it reacted to JHRoseWrestling in PSU - MICH   
    I think this is rooted in the fact we jumped straight into dual meets this season.  As I started to type this it felt like an interesting reach, but as I process I become more and more convinced this is having an impact.
    Simply put, the open circuit in the early winter sets the table for this call to be made during the dual stretch.  For starters the opens are impossibly long days with too few mats for too many competitors.  It is advisable for the referee, as much for physical self-preservation as for moving the tournament along, to be diligent about enforcing the edge rules effectively.  This keeps the guys in bounds, the matches moving along swiftly, and the bouts per hour high.  No such concern in duals.
    Secondly, each individual match in an open has less gravity than in a dual where team score is in play and all eyes are on a single mat.  With less skin in the game it becomes easier to insert yourself into the match and award the warning or the stall and subsequent point.  Of course wrestling rules weirdos like me understand that not assigning this penalty in the correct moment influences the match just as much as assigning the penalty at an incorrect time.
    Finally, without these reps under the circumstances above, referees have less recent practice enforcing the edge rules and a lower level of comfort assigning the penalty correctly down the dual stretch.  As a result they sometimes opt for the less inflammatory action call, even when assessing the penalty would be a better choice.
  11. Like
    drag it reacted to Le duke in PSU - MICH   
    That, and timing.
     
    PSU doesn’t look “right” yet; their top guys are still a quarter step behind where they were before the layoff.
     
    Starocci’s defense kept him in it today; his offense still isn’t back to the beating Skatzka/Marsteller level from earlier. If he gets back to that level, he’s a top-3 contender.
     
    Something Nolf-like about catching Massa like that.
     
     
    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
  12. Like
    drag it reacted to lu1979 in America's Cup Wrestlers   
    I know it wasn't funny but did you see the look Cox was giving Honis after the second eye poke?   I couldn't help but laugh - Honis obviously felt bad but Cox's look is like "what the hells the matter with you poking me in the eye in what's practically an exhibition match"?
  13. Like
    drag it got a reaction from BossHoss in America's Cup Wrestlers   
    Yianni-McKee was very Yianni and very eventful.  As noted elsewhere there was an endless challenge that you'll just want to forward through. I saw a few of the matches afterwards -- random thoughts:
    1. Nice announcing team. Informative. Not too talky. Funny.  Not Bader (he makes fantastic movies and gets good guests but absolutely cannot call a match live).
    2.  In the Flo section where they have the matches, you see the labels of the individual matches which say things like Yianni in the fifth place match and Cox in the third and you go:  Wow!!!  What a wild tournament! What are the repurcussions of these upsets?!  And then you watch and you realize that those were (spoiler alert) based on their teams (I guess).
    3. J'Den Cox is good at wrestling. 
    4.  Something that I thought was funny. Honis caught Cox twice in the eye.  Bad, both times, Cox was in a lot of pain.  After the second one, when they started again, Honis put his hand very slowly and carefully on Cox's neck in a tie, he was not under any circumstances going to poke him again.  
  14. Like
    drag it got a reaction from Alwayswrestling in America's Cup Wrestlers   
    Yianni-McKee was very Yianni and very eventful.  As noted elsewhere there was an endless challenge that you'll just want to forward through. I saw a few of the matches afterwards -- random thoughts:
    1. Nice announcing team. Informative. Not too talky. Funny.  Not Bader (he makes fantastic movies and gets good guests but absolutely cannot call a match live).
    2.  In the Flo section where they have the matches, you see the labels of the individual matches which say things like Yianni in the fifth place match and Cox in the third and you go:  Wow!!!  What a wild tournament! What are the repurcussions of these upsets?!  And then you watch and you realize that those were (spoiler alert) based on their teams (I guess).
    3. J'Den Cox is good at wrestling. 
    4.  Something that I thought was funny. Honis caught Cox twice in the eye.  Bad, both times, Cox was in a lot of pain.  After the second one, when they started again, Honis put his hand very slowly and carefully on Cox's neck in a tie, he was not under any circumstances going to poke him again.  
  15. Like
    drag it reacted to NJDan in Yianni-McKee Scoring   
    An overall rules-reffing disaster. But I have one question: When Yianni had McKee on his back, IIRC he was given two points. Wouldn't that be a takedown and an exposure for a total of 4 points?
  16. Like
    drag it reacted to Husker_Du in Come on FRL   
    you strenuously object, i thought
  17. Like
    drag it reacted to MadMardigain in The Purdue Mat   
    Edinboro had the kilt designed mat that fans either loved or hated.   
  18. Like
    drag it reacted to NJDan in The Purdue Mat   
    It's pretty awesome in black and white.
  19. Like
    drag it reacted to jackwebster in Bar and Half - so easy - apparently   
    Stieber was good at it. I think they both have freaky strength.
  20. Like
    drag it reacted to Housebuye in Bar and Half - so easy - apparently   
    With some guys, it’s obvious why they are amazing.
     Burroughs has work ethic, discipline, speed, power and a willingness to learn from anyone. 
      
    Snyder has work ethic, positioning, gas tank, and unreal power
    Spencer Lee isn’t the fastest, has good positioning and speed but nothing that looks unbeatable (this no Musakaev’s speed or Yianni’s flexibility). Still though, he just kills everyone once he touches you. Even his pressure doesn’t look that bad. 
      
    I can’t explain it, but he has proven over and over that he is just better than everyone 
  21. Like
    drag it reacted to MadMardigain in Willie "Petty" Saylor   
    This place is as much social media as I care to get involved in.  And for good reason. 
  22. Like
    drag it reacted to nom in New FloFilm: 'Toughest Bracket Ever'   
    They talked about Burrough's backside matches.  Would have liked to have heard more about the others.  Battle of greats throughout.
  23. Like
    drag it reacted to VakAttack in New FloFilm: 'Toughest Bracket Ever'   
    The Penn State film I feel like their hand was forced because those guys are so tight-lipped.  This one I agree could have used more of the participants.  This is kind of in-line with modern sports documentaries, I guess, that have the talking heads going throughout.
  24. Like
    drag it reacted to nhs67 in Michigan Natty Chances   
    I'm just being a real mcdouche.  I got it. :P
    If he contends for 2nd at NCAAs he'll likely contend for 2nd at B1Gs as well.  That means he'll be considerably higher than 15th seed.
  25. Thanks
    drag it reacted to Hotkarl712 in So, can there be a 5 time national champ or 5 time AA now?   
    Spencer has a shot at four titles, Mekhi Lewis and any freshman has a shot at five titles. Maybe Yianni, I don't really know the eligibility situation over there.
×
×
  • Create New...