"I'm not the flag-wavinest Cub Scout in the pack but I think national teams should wear the flag colors."

The Oranje and the Azzurri would disagree.

I know that the orange and blue worn by the Netherlands and Italy respectively have national significance, but they are not colors of the Dutch and Italian flags, and, in the passage that I quoted, King is talking about flags.

My point was (implicitly) that national (and very recognizable) colors don't have to be flag colors.

Hup Holland Hup!

RunRun23 said: "Why isn't this used more? Does SLG or OBP really give a better assessment of the hitter?"

Yes.

RBI depend largely on the performance of one's teammates, while slugging and OBP do not, hence their greater usefulness in evaluating a single player's ability.

And what exactly would the Hits/RBI ratio reveal about performance? Wouldn't a guy with a lot more hits but the same number of RBI as another guy be better? Maybe the first guy's teammates are worse at getting on base.

Manny and Teddy

Are people really talking about RBI in this discussion?

Ted Williams' career adjusted OPS+: 190 (2nd overall)

Manny's: 155 (tied for 22nd).

One's a freak, and the other's a superduper ridiculous juggernaut of offensive output. I like Manny's personality, though. He can take a pee break behind the Green Monster whenever he wants for all I care.

tms said: "I don't have to 'tell myself' that Chief Wahoo is not derogatory. It's only people looking for a controversy that can see him that way. He's a cartoon character. Cartoon characters look like cartoon characters. If you strain and squint your eyes you can see racism and voila a controversy and column topic."

Ever see Coal Black and de Sebben Dwarves? Or check out superdickery.com and its section "Propaganda Extravaganza." Cartoons can be plenty racist, just like any other medium.

King said: "'BTW, speaking of defense, anyone else think Peralta is a liability at short, especially for a team full of ground-ball pitchers?'

I don't. I don't see him every day, but I think he's a plus defender, though he had some tough moments in the ALCS, mostly because of tricky, though not exactly "bad" hops. I don't know if Cabrera would be better at short. Maybe. I'm skeptical of visual judgments (all those balls that get by him to his right!), including my own. How many balls does he get to his left that someone else doesn't? Is it a good trade? His fielding numbers are generally pretty good."

I can't believe that King went all Joe Morgan on us. Defensive stats aren't perfect, but they're worth a look. Among ML shortstops, Peralta is 11th (of 24) in Fielding %, 6th in range factor, and 21st in zone rating. Peralta's actually a pretty average hitting ss (his OPS is right in the middle among those who qualify).

At any rate, calling Peralta a defensive liability does injustice to the term as long as Hanley Ramirez is playing.

And why the self-contradiction--you haven't seen him play enough but you might be skeptical of visual judgments? Which is it?

Omar Vizquel, for those of you who care, is still awesome in the field. Derek Jeter still isn't.

drken said: "My theory is that upsets build on each other. Once a bunch of top 10 teams get beat by unranked opponents, the rest of them start to believe it too. That's got to help. Plus, once the top teams start losing the teams under them move up. Their upsets may still be big (did anybody pick Vandy to beat The Fighting Gamecocks?) it's that their not as big as they seem by the rankings. But your'e right, the BCS can only work if there is a consensus number 1 and 2. That may not happen this year. You're welcome to do the math to find out how unlikely it was that that many high teams lose."

I'd offer a less psychologically motivated reason for the continued flux in the top 10. Some early and flukey losses among the preseason top 10 cleared out space for other teams, teams that are likely not really among the ten best in the country and thus likely to lose. South Florida and South Carolina are good examples. USF picked off early victories against two decent teams that played atrociously, one of which played more than half the game without its star qb. USF almost certainly isn't the second-best team in the country (though that isn't to say that it didn't deserve its #2 ranking at the time). South Carolina is likely not really one of the ten best teams in the country either, as suggested by its pathetic offense over the last six quarters (6 points against the decidedly not-good UNC and Vandy). I guess that my less-than-original point is that the polls don't often reflect the reality of college football, hence their flux early in the season. Vandy, for example, likely didn't beat the sixth best team in the country; it beat the team ranked sixth.

I recently wasted an idle afternoon investigating how well the preseason polls predict the final polls. Over the last 12 years or so, the final top 10 pretty much includes about half the original top 10. An unranked team in the preseason rarely finishes in the top 10, though it's not completely bizarre for that to happen. We could still definitely see this 50% trend continue this year. Only one preseason top 10 team is pretty much eliminated from placing that high in the final poll (Louisville). The current top 10 includes six teams that started there (Ohio State started at 11th), and Texas, Michigan, and Wisconsin all have good chances to climb back into the top 10 by the season's end.

The BCS has had a consensus 1-2 game three times (1999, 2002, 2005) in nine years.

I just realized that I didn't read all of drken's post and that I pretty much repeated what he said in more words.

Sorry everyone. Move along. Nothing to see here.