MySpace founder willing to pay Lincecum's salary if Giants sign him

This is such a great idea that I'm sure the union, the owners and MLB will all be dead set against it. Imagine the arms race that could develop between these 1%'ers if they were all unleashed. It would be the Wild West.

This is something I would do, if I had the discretionary income burning a hole in my pocket. That's why I know for sure it will get shot down. 

from CBS Sports:

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/eye-on-baseball/25463850/myspace-founder-willing-to-pay-lincecums-salary-if-giants-sign-him

Shared via CBS Sports
http://cbssportsapp.com

Sent from my iPhone

BBWAA writers should relinquish throne as HOF's moral gatekeepers-MLB - Buster Olney Blog- ESPN

Glad to see my original thoughts, from years and years ago, are starting to gain some mainstream traction. IMO, it will be too little, too late from both Clemens and Bonds. The BBWAA will take the easy way out and pass it along to the Veterans Committee as they have historically.

Time to revamp the whole process. They are weeding out the "undesirables", the guys in the BBWAA who do not even watch baseball but retained a Hall of Fame vote. That made sense, although it mimics what we do in this country to vote for a POTUS, so WTFDIK?!?

I like them both, but under the circumstances as we now know them, how Clemens garners more support than Bonds, under than covert, subtle racism among the voting bloc, is beyond my understanding.

Also, if there is place for Piazza and his back-ne, then explain to me again, like I'm a second grader, how Clemens and Bonds don't belong. Once again, other than a "good old boys" wink-wink, nod-nod, HTF does that happen?

Oh, what a tangled web these good old boys weave.....

from ESPN:
http://espn.go.com/blog/buster-olney/insider/post?id=11997

BBWAA writers should relinquish throne as HOF's moral gatekeepers

Thom Loverro attaches a label to the writers who have changed their minds and voted for Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens.
The ballot machinations have been interesting this year. Some voters hid behind the so-called character clause for years in declining to vote for Bonds, Clemens, Mike Piazza or others linked to performance-enhancing drugs, and are now reversing course without truly acknowledging a complete flip-flop or any previous mistake they've made. Which is a cop-out.
It's OK to change your mind; we all do that. But nobody should attempt to write, at least with any credibility, that the character clause should be given weight and then switch a vote on a player from the PED group.
What that really means is that voter has never actually developed a true standard for election, which has always been the core challenge. Either the character clause matters in the process, or it doesn't; there can be no middle ground on that question.
And as has been written here for years, the character clause should hold no weight, because even with current Hall of Famers, it cannot possibly apply, given the high number of people with personal flaws -- human flaws -- among the group.
For starters, the person believed to have written the character clause, former commissioner Kenesaw Mountain Landis, worked to keep the sport segregated, and that in itself should have been enough to appraise the depth and significance of the character clause.
For the record: I stopped voting in the Hall of Fame last year. Before that, I voted for who I believed to be the best players on the ballot, regardless of PED history, for a couple of reasons:
1. There was never a way to know exactly who did what, and when, and in what volume, and ascertain a proper context for any one player's use of performance-enhancing drugs.Yes, we know some things about what a small handful of prominent players did, like Mark McGwire, but was he one of 500 players who did something? A thousand? Maybe he was one of 10,000 or more when you include the number of minor league players (and other various circuits) attempting to elbow their way to The Show?
This is what made the Mitchell investigation and report so disgustingly abhorrent: There was absolutely no chance of reaching anything close to a necessary understanding of the scope of drug use within the sport, and yet the folks who generated that information singled out fewer than 100 in their final rendering, while knowing they were effectively demonizing the handful they threw to the mob.
Sadly, writers have done the same with the handling of the Hall of Fame voting.
Insider

Sent from my iPhone

---


from Yahoo Sports:

http://sports.yahoo.com/news/barry-bonds--roger-clemens-inch-closer-to-hall-of-fame-induction-021548714.html?soc_src=mail&soc_trk=ma

Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens inch closer to Hall of Fame inductions

Slowly, improbably, the tide is turning and the Baseball Writers Association of America is seeing the valley of its illogic. This year, it's a legitimate, substantial jump. Next year, a likely leap into a majority. And after that, perhaps the rolling snowball turns into an avalanche that sweeps Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens into their rightful place in the National Baseball Hall of Fame.
.
The Hall reveals the results of balloting at 6 p.m. ET Wednesday, and the only sure thing is Ken Griffey Jr. waltzing into Cooperstown. Momentum – and exit polling – are in Mike Piazza's favor. Jeff Bagwell could sneak in past the 75 percent threshold. And Tim Raines is close enough that he should book a ticket to upstate New York for July 2017.
Amid it all are the suddenly ascendant candidacies of Bonds and Clemens, steroid pariah Nos. 1 and 2. Their first two years on the ballot were thought to have been a litmus test, and the results were more acidic than alkaline. Bonds received 34.7 percent in 2014 and 36.8 percent in 2015, Clemens 35.4 percent and 37.5 percent.
What once seemed a lost cause now can be categorized merely as a longshot. A confluence of events is breathing life into the candidacies of Bonds and Clemens, who occupied two of the nine names on my ballot, alongside Piazza, Bagwell, Raines, Mike Mussina, Curt Schilling and Edgar Martinez.
As of early Tuesday evening, the Hall of Fame vote tracker kept by Ryan Thibodaux showed Bonds tracking at 49.7 percent and Clemens at 49.1 percent of the 171 ballots shared publicly by BBWAA members. That's about 10 percent ahead of where they were on public ballots last year, and those numbers – particularly for those who used or are suspected to have used steroids – tend to end up about 5 percent higher than the entire lot of ballots.
While their gains don't match some – Mussina is up 22 percent, Bagwell and Martinez 19 percent, Raines 15 percent and Schilling 13 percent – they are gains nevertheless, and they may not stop despite the Hall's clear – if not publicly stated – desire to keep them away from walls dotted with cheaters already.
Certainly it's possible that the exit polling is deceiving and Bonds and Clemens remain stagnant, though if history does hold, there are two explanations for the jump: winnowing upward of 100 voters and others beginning to rationalize why keeping Bonds and Clemens off their ballots went against logic.
Taking away votes from voters who haven't written about baseball in decades made sense. The best electorate is the most informed, and to expect those far removed from the industry to understand the game's shift – and the according increase in knowledge – places an unfair burden. Those new to Bonds and Clemens have their reasons, though the most compelling comes from San Francisco Chronicle national baseball writer John Shea, who wrote: "How could I in good faith not vote for Bonds when I might be voting for other PED guys?"
Shea isn't the only national voice to add Bonds and Clemens to their ballot. Fox's Ken Rosenthal, the most respected voice in baseball writing, checked off Bonds and Clemens for the first time this year. ESPN's Jerry Crasnick, another writer known for intelligent and measured thought, did the same. At least seven others publicly acknowledged adding Bonds and Clemens, and longtime writer Jon Heyman said he voted for Bonds for the first time.
Not only do the votes of big-name writers help this season, they could subtly nudge others to reconsider their positions in future seasons. Advancing the case even more would be the induction of Piazza. By the twisted reasoning of some, it will take a player believed to have taken steroids – though dogged by suspicion, Piazza never tested positive nor was proven to have used performance-enhancing drugs – entering the Hall before voters are comfortable allowing others in.
Treating Piazza like some sort of steroid pioneer is so twisted, so backward, so very Hall of Fame. If that's what it takes to help voters recognize that leaving out Bonds and Clemens – the greatest hitter since Babe Ruth and one of the finest pitchers ever – is an abdication of duty, so be it. Just because the Hall of Fame refuses to wipe out its antiquated character clause, one ignored by our voting predecessors and that has no business in choosing players who best represented their era through the quality of their play, doesn't mean that writers who vote must hem themselves to it.
No matter what any writer believes, he or she doesn't understand what happened during the height of steroid use in baseball. Even if opinions can be rendered without a full accounting, anything but an all-or-nothing vote – either you consider all players from an era or don't bother casting a ballot – is a cop-out. Not voting for players because of suspicion is hubristic considering how little we truly know; not voting for those who tested positive is more understandable, though it lends credence to tests that athletes employ chemists to beat.
All of these things are conspiring for a step forward from the BBWAA. The moralists won't go away, and they may well occupy more than 25 percent of the electorate. That's not a surprise. Nobody ever accused the middle- to late-aged white male – the vast majority of BBWAA voters – of being the most progressive group.
At the same time, as the ballot glut of recent votes clears over the next few years and more writers who don't stigmatize steroids quite the same as others earn their votes, Bonds and Clemens adorning plaques in Cooperstown looks possible. It would be a striking moment for baseball, one that places accused cheaters alongside those who will argue the Hall would be ruined by their inclusion. Those are the words of obstructionists, of hypocrites, of a group that should welcome the game's best and brightest.
And whatever they might've been – liars, cheats, abusers of the privilege that is playing baseball – Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens were the best and brightest. Forget all the rest. The voters have seven years left to get it right.

Sent from my iPhone

Jessica Mendoza versus John Kruk: Tale of the Tape (psst...spoiler alert: it's no contest)

OK, tale of the tape, Mendoza versus Kruk:

Intellectual Appeal:
Advantage Mendoza. The average IQ level in the booth goes up by 30-40 points easily with this move alone, we'll get to the Boone - Schilling trade-off later. Mendoza, a Stanford grad. Kruk, IDK room temperature IQ maybe?

Visual Appeal:
Advantage Mendoza. Not that this is, or should be that important because the camera faces in the opposite direction 99% of the time, but I'm just saying.....again the Q-rating, or whatever measures this sort of frivolousness just went through the roof.

Auditory Appeal:
Advantage Mendoza. This was the one area where Kruk may have had a shot to win, but he has't really offered much to the broadcast in years. Other than a certain self-deprecating, Uecker-esque appeal to his career -- which was actually pretty good -- there's only so many beer-swilling, crotch-grabbing locker room stories one can slip in to a baseball broadcast without detracting from the game. Mendoza has transitioned almost seamlessly from the softball side to the baseball side, leaving behind the urge to present opinions with a "this is how we did it in softball" caveat. She gets the game of baseball as if she was the one who had Kruk's career and presents a well-rounded, intelligent viewpoint nine times out of ten.

Easier to listen too, easier to watch, easy decision to make. Mendoza by unanimous decision.

As to the Boone for Schilling trade-off, neither one is particularly easy to listen to. Schilling gets removed for shooting his mouth off  too often outside the booth. Instead of putting down the gun or removing the ammunition, he just kept shooting himself in the foot.

And he'll probably blame anybody or anything but himself for the removal. Too bad. Some people live in houses without mirrors. 

from Big Story:
http://bigstory.ap.org/article/0ba4005862c14acc8d321c01d2741e0f/jessica-mendoza-joins-sunday-night-baseball-full-time

Jessica Mendoza joins 'Sunday Night Baseball' full-time

Jessica Mendoza wonders what she'd be doing during the upcoming Major League Baseball season if not for some events out of her control.
The retired softball star was scheduled to call two Monday night MLB games late in 2015 for ESPN and hoped to get a regular gig this year, but figured she might need to wait longer for a slot to open up.
Instead, six days after her debut, she leapt onto the network's showcase platform of "Sunday Night Baseball" — and hasn't left since.
ESPN announced Wednesday that the 35-year-old Mendoza is now a permanent fixture in the Sunday prime-time booth. She'll join another new analyst, Aaron Boone, alongside returning play-by-play voice Dan Shulman.
They replace Curt Schilling, who moves to Monday, and John Kruk, who returns to "Baseball Tonight."
"It's just crazy when I look back, and literally less than six months ago I had no idea what was going to happen after the Monday night games," Mendoza says.
Just like that, she's the most prominent woman calling national games for a major men's sport — one of the few in the booth, not limited to sideline reporter. It's an ascension that seems to have happened blindingly fast, and yet it was also a slow and steady climb.
An Olympic gold medalist and the sport's premier hitter, Mendoza found herself needing a new career when softball was dropped from the Summer Games. The Stanford alum joined ESPN in 2007 and didn't give much thought to calling baseball until the following year, when Kruk took part in Women's College World Series coverage.
Mendoza saw how knowledge of one sport could translate to the other. Still, she acknowledged, historically there was just "one-way traffic" — her father, a baseball coach, would guide her softball teams, but a woman typically wouldn't instruct baseball players.
She later did some sideline reporting on men's sports and studio work for "Baseball Tonight." In June, Mendoza became the first female game analyst for a men's College World Series telecast.
Meeting with senior coordinating producer Phil Orlins in April, she was eager to work games but wary of seeming like a gimmick. Mendoza remembered watching in 2012 when former U.S. teammate Michele Smith appeared on a nationally televised MLB game on TBS and "feeling like she was a guest."
She dryly describes how she didn't want her male colleagues to promote her presence in the booth: "We have a female with us today, yay."
But Mendoza came away from that meeting confident ESPN was serious about her long-term prospects as an MLB game analyst. Not that she ever imagined a spot on "Sunday Night Baseball" could come anytime soon. She laughs in recalling that when she attended a Sunday night game early last season to observe the crew, she felt like a total groupie.
On Aug. 24, she called the Monday night matchup between the Cardinals and Diamondbacks. The next morning, Schilling posted then quickly deleted a tweet comparing Muslims to Nazis. ESPN pulled him from that Sunday's game and replace him with Mendoza.
She couldn't eat, couldn't sleep — squeezed by the pressure that her performance could sway whether other women received future opportunities to call men's sports.
"I knew even the smallest mistake, it felt like the world would come after me," Mendoza says.
As a player, she would visualize how a huge game would go, but "it's hard to do that when you've never done it." On the field, she would take confidence from her preparation, but now there wasn't time.
"I could have totally sucked," she says.
Yet while this was her first "Sunday Night Baseball" assignment, it was hardly her first live sporting event. As the pitchers started throwing and the batters swinging, she realized it was no different from the dozens of softball games she worked each season.
"You could feel the change in her comfort level inning by inning even in the first game," Shulman says.
The Cubs' Jake Arrieta made history that night by no-hitting the Dodgers. Mendoza made history after her debut earned rave reviews, sticking on Sunday night the rest of the season and becoming the first female analyst to call a nationally televised MLB playoff game when she worked the AL wild-card matchup.
John Wildhack, ESPN's executive vice president for programming and production, doesn't want to speculate about what kind of position Mendoza would've held in 2016 if not for Schilling's tweet. She was undoubtedly a big part of the network's long-term baseball plans before that, he adds, preferring to focus on how she managed the circumstances that were in her control.
"She seized the moment," he says.
As Wildhack talked to others in the industry about Mendoza's performance, he realized: "Wow, this was not just good. This was really, really, really good."
Boone adds that what he heard "from very smart people I respect is she said some things on games from an analysis standpoint that made them take note."
Still, there were occasions in those first couple of broadcasts that Mendoza hesitated before making a point, fearful of the repercussions of a misstep. The moment would pass and she'd never get in that observation.
That happened less and less by the wild-card round. The additional games, along with her studio work during the playoffs, also allowed her to introduce herself to players and managers around the batting cage and in the clubhouse.
She fondly remembers chatting with Royals star Eric Hosmer during the World Series, his bat in her hand, just two great hitters talking shop. Mendoza hopes that soon she'll no longer need to start each conversation explaining who she is, why she's there, and how she understands the intricacies of their swings.
"It just felt so good for the guys to see me as a peer and not just a female," she says.
And now with the benefit of a whole offseason, Mendoza has time for her beloved preparation. She expects to put together an Excel spreadsheet on each team.
Returning from the World Series, Mendoza happened to be on the same flight as "Monday Night Football" producer Jay Rothman. He showed her video clips that coach-turned-analyst Jon Gruden compiles and narrates for his colleagues to highlight areas he's focusing on.
Hoping to learn more, she shadowed the Monday night crew for three days before the Nov. 9 game between the Bears and Chargers in San Diego. Mendoza attended all the meetings, sat down with play-by-play announcer Mike Tirico for three hours, and peppered Gruden with questions about his routine. She wanted to know everything from the volume of his notes to where his eyes go during a play.
With her new role, Mendoza, who lives in California and has two young children, made one particular request: She'll still call the Women's College World Series.
She and Boone will be the fifth different analyst team in six seasons for "Sunday Night Baseball" since Jon Miller and Joe Morgan departed after 21 years in 2010 — partly because Bobby Valentine and Terry Francona each left the booth to return to managing.
The 42-year-old Boone, who joined ESPN in 2010 after playing a dozen seasons in the majors, moves up from the Monday night games. "Sunday Night Baseball" also gets a new producer in Andy Reichwald, who also comes over from Mondays, while Buster Olney returns as the reporter.
"If this team establishes themselves as we hope and we think they can," Wildhack said, "it will be terrific for us, terrific for 'Sunday Night Baseball' and terrific for the sport."

Sent from my iPhone

Tweets from the Twitter-sphere. Get 'em while they are 140 characters or less

	MLB Mindset (@MLBmindset)
1/17/16, 10:16 PM Research shows that visualizing yourself executing the ideal mechanics will help you execute it physically. pic.twitter.com/RwYGXM1tTL

Download the Twitter app

I agree with this wholeheartedly BTW. I wish they had cited the research for those who do not believe this to be true, because it is compelling. That doesn't mean that people who do not believe would read it, but.....I'm just saying. 

---

Is this tweet at least subtly racist, or am I missing something? Oh, I forgot, you can trash white folks until the cows come home, my bad. And we're supposed to have a conversation with folks who puke out shit like this? Please, spare me!!

	Jeff Passan (@JeffPassan)
1/16/16, 11:28 PM I don't know what's more amazing. The Hail Mary or the fact that Aaron Rodgers went 96 yards in 1:07 with two white guys playing receiver.

Download the Twitter app

---

Anytime you can start the day with a little dose of C.S. Lewis is probably going to be a pretty good day.

	C. S. Lewis (@CSLewisDaily)
1/20/16, 10:49 PM The choice of every lost soul can be expressed in the words "Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven." ~ #CSLewis | #TheGreatDivorce

Download the Twitter app

----

....or Margaret Thatcher.

	IL Family Action (@ILfamilyaction)
1/21/16, 7:42 AM "Socialists don't like ordinary people choosing. For they might not choose Socialism." ~Margaret Thatcher

Download the Twitter app

Sent from my iPhone

This is not good: Brawl break out at girls HS basketball game in Indiana

YouTube

This after reports from a Kentucky middle school boys game where parents from the stands accosted an official after the coach took his team to the locker room in dispute of a technical foul  issued to said coach.

from Yahoo Sports:
http://news.yahoo.com/two-girls-high-school-basketball-164048388.html

One would assume that the girl caught on video stomping an opponent laying on the ground will be one of those players who may have to face some additional discipline.

View photo

.

As a part of their punishment, coaches from both sides will have to take behavioral courses, while players will need to take sportsmanship courses. Both teams will also not be able to play in this year’s state tournament and will be on probation for the entire next season.

This article says the combatants here in Indiana will undergo some remedial training and behavioral modification, a rehash off stuff they go through BEFORE they take the court!!

I know some people think I exaggerate when I tell horror stories from the field or court, but when I see stuff like this going on, if anything, I may be understating the problem.

Giants first exhibition game | TzeroApp

48 days and 6 hours remaining until Giants First Exhibition Game #TZeroApp

Sad news for Giants fans | RIP Monte Irvin

He was to the Giants what Jackie Robinson was to the Dodgers. A pioneer and a great Giant. RIP Monte Irvin.

	SF Giants Rumors (@SFGiants_Rumors)
1/12/16, 3:05 PM We are saddened to learn that Hall of Famer and civil rights pioneer Monte Irvin has passed away at 96. #RIPMonte fb.me/2atlAZEF6

Download the Twitter app

Sent from my iPhone

Speaking words of wisdom

Tweet by "Dr. Squat" Fred Hatfield, although I've often heard this from Mike Ditka as well.

	Frederick Hatfield (@drsquat)
1/10/16, 8:22 AM Yesterday is history. Tomorrow a mystery. Today is a gift. That's why it's called the PRESENT!

Download the Twitter app

Sent from my iPhone

Estimated probability of competing in professional athletics | NCAA.org - The Official Site of the NCAA

I wonder sometimes if all the sports parents who spend considerable sums on their prodigies in order to "get exposure" for a coveted college scholarship understand the risk/reward ratio.

"Professional opportunities are extremely limited and the likelihood of a high school or even college athlete becoming a professional athlete is very low."

This study just looks at the odds of a college athlete going pro. The odds of a HS athlete going to college and then the pros is exponentially greater, as is the odds of a youth player going from that level. Think about a pyramid shape, more competitors at the lower levels trying to claw up to the limited spaces at the higher levels.

So going from the youth level to college level would seem to be almost as difficult (two level jump) as from HS or college to pros, which is to say "very low".

I wonder sometimes why they don't take the now large sums of money invested in that dream of going to college via scholarship and take the virtually guaranteed route of saving that money and paying their kids own way through college.

They can still walk-on and compete in a chosen sport. In the current environment, especially in baseball with 13.1 scholarships that needs to accommodate 25 players, coaches would appreciate a "freebie" every now and then.

IDK, maybe the glory is worth rolling the dice, but it's not even a double or nothing wager in my opinion.

from NCAA.org
http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-professional-athletics

Estimated probability of competing in professional athletics

More than 460,000 compete as NCAA athletes, and just a select few within each sport move on to compete at the professional or Olympic level.

The table presents of how many NCAA athletes move on to professional careers in sports like basketball, football, baseball and ice hockey.  Professional opportunities are extremely limited and the likelihood of a high school or even college athlete becoming a professional athlete is very low.
In contrast, the likelihood of an NCAA athlete earning a college degree is significantly greater; graduation success rates are 84% in Division I, 72% in Division II and 87% in Division III.

	NCAA Participants	Approximate # Draft Eligible	# Draft Slots	# NCAA Drafted	% NCAA to Major Pro*	% NCAA to Total Pro^
Football	71,291	15,842	256	255	1.6%	3.7%
M Basketball	18,320	4,071	60	47	1.2%	11.6%
W Basketball	16,319	3,626	36	32	0.9%	4.7%
Baseball	33,431	7,429	1,216	638	8.6%	--
M Ice Hockey	3,976	884	211	60	6.8%	--
M Soccer	23,602	5,245	76	72	1.4%	--

* Percent NCAA to Major Pro figures are based on the number of available draft slots in the NFL, NBA, WNBA, MLB, NHL and MLS drafts only.  See methods notes for important details on the definition of NHL draftee in men's ice hockey.  Column percentages were calculated as (#NCAA Drafted) / (Approximate # Draft Eligible).

^ Percent NCAA to Total Pro takes the number of pro opportunities from the "% NCAA to Major Pro" calculation and adds in some additional professional opportunities that we were able to quantify.  So, for football, this calculation includes NFL, Canadian Football League and Arena League slots available to first-year professionals.  For men's basketball we accounted for NBA, NBA D-League and international opportunities.  For women's basketball, we assessed WNBA and international roster slots.  See methods notes for details on these calculations.  Data on full-time international professional opportunities available in baseball, men's ice hockey and men's soccer were not analyzed here.

Methodology and Notes

General

• College participation numbers are from the NCAA's 2013-14 Sports Sponsorship and Participation Rates Report.  These college numbers account for participation in college athletics at NCAA-member schools only.    
• To estimate the number of NCAA student-athletes in a sport eligible for a particular year's professional draft, the total number of NCAA student-athlete participants in the sport was divided by 4.5.  This figure was used to provide a general estimate of the number of student-athletes in a draft cohort (single draft class) in a given year, accounting for redshirting, degree completion delays due to transfer, etc. that extend the average time to graduation to just beyond four year in all sports.  In other words, we observe a year-to-year departure rate (whether due to graduation, dropout or departure for a professional sports opportunity) of just below one-quarter of the total number of student-athletes in each sport.  Because the sports examined (M/W basketball, football, baseball, men's ice hockey and men's soccer) have dramatically different rules for draft eligibility, these calculations should be treated as estimates only.
• ​Data on available professional opportunities are described below for each sport.

Baseball

• MLB draft data from 2013.  There were 1,216 draft picks in that year; 638 of those picked were from NCAA schools (source: NCSA Athletic Recruiting website).  Of the 638, Division I student-athletes comprised 552 of those chosen, Division II provided 72 and Division III had 14.  382 high school athletes were chosen in 2013 (some of whom went on to play in college instead of turning pro) along with 154 from junior colleges, 38 from NAIA schools and 4 from other sources. 
• Percent NCAA to Pro calculated as number of NCAA student-athletes taken in the draft (n=638) divided by approximate number draft eligible.  Not all of the student-athletes drafted go on to play professional baseball and many draftees fail to reach the Major League.

Men's ice hockey

• NHL draft data from 2013.  There were 211 draft picks in that year.  Only 4 players from NCAA rosters were selected in that draft.  However, this is not indicative of the likelihood of going from a college team to a professional team due to the nature of the NHL draft, where players are typically selected prior to turning college-aged. 
• In examining the subsequent hockey pathways of 2013 draftees, we determined that 60 of the 211 (source: hockeydb.com) had attended an NCAA college for any period of time through February 2015 (or in two cases had committed to a college for 2015-16). These numbers, although not fully comparable to those used in the other sports examined, were used to calculate an approximate NCAA to Major Pro percentage.  Note that only a small subset of the players drafted ever play in an NHL game.  Undrafted college players may go on to sign contracts with NHL teams after completing college (those numbers are not part of the current NCAA to Major Pro calculation). 
• Currently, 31% of players on active NHL rosters played college hockey, up from about 20% in the year 2000 (source: collegehockeyinc.com).  Of the 1,437 hockey players under contract with any NHL team in 2014, 27% were former NCAA student-athletes (all but one from Division I ice hockey programs).  Thanks to Nate Ewell at College Hockey, Inc. for providing these data.

Men's soccer

• MLS SuperDraft data from 2014.  There were 77 draft slots in that year, but only 76 picks made.  Of the 76 picks, 72 were NCAA student-athletes (68 from Division I programs, 3 from Division II and 1 from Division III).  Percentage NCAA to Major Pro calculated using the 72 NCAA selections. (Source: mlssoccer.com).
• These calculations do not account for other domestic or international professional soccer opportunities.

Men's basketball

• NBA draft data from 2013.  There were 60 draft slots in that year, but only 47 went to NCAA players (others chosen were international players not attending U.S. colleges).  Percentage NCAA to Major Pro calculated using the 47 NCAA selections. Since 2006, 12 international players have been drafted on average each year.
• On 2014-15 opening day NBA rosters, former NCAA players filled 81% of roster spots (all but one player from Division I schools).  (Source: Jim Sukup, College Basketball News).
• Data on other professional opportunities in men's basketball were collected by NCAA staff with the assistance of Marek Wojtera from eurobasket.com.  It was determined that an additional 424 former NCAA student-athletes from the 2013 draft cohort played internationally or in the NBA D-League in 2014 (307 from Division I, 90 from Division II and 27 from Division III).  These numbers were combined with the NBA draftees to calculate an NCAA to Total Professional opportunities proportion (calculated as [47 + 424] / 4,071).   
• We estimate that 3.9% of draft-eligible Division I players were chosen in the 2013 NBA draft (47 / 1,210).  However, in total, 29% of draft-eligible Division I players competed professionally (NBA, D-League, or internationally) in their first year after leaving college (calculated as [47 + 307] / 1,210). Approximately 15% of draft-eligible players from the five Division I conferences with autonomous governance (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) were drafted by the NBA in 2013 (33 / 222), while 52% played professionally somewhere in their first year post-college (calculated as [33 + 82] / 222).

Women's basketball

• WNBA draft data from 2013.  There were 36 draft slots in that year's draft, 32 of which went to NCAA players (other 4 chosen were international players not attending U.S. colleges).  All 32 NCAA selections came from Division I colleges.  Percentage NCAA to Major Pro calculated using the 32 NCAA selections.
• Data on international professional opportunities in women's basketball were collected by NCAA staff with the assistance of Marek Wojtera from eurobasket.com.  It was determined that an additional 139 former NCAA student-athletes from the 2013 draft cohort played internationally in 2014 (129 from Division I, 8 from Division II and 2 from Division III).  These numbers were combined with the WNBA draftees to calculate an NCAA to Total Professional opportunities proportion (calculated as [32 + 139] / 3,626).   
• We estimate that 2.9% of draft-eligible Division I players were chosen in the 2013 WNBA draft (32 / 1,089).  However, in total, 15% of draft-eligible Division I players competed professionally (WNBA or internationally) in their first year after leaving college (calculated as [32 + 129] / 1,089). Approximately 12% of draft-eligible players from the five Division I conferences with autonomous governance (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC) were drafted by the WNBA in 2013 (26 / 222), while 31% played professionally somewhere in their first year post-college (calculated as [26 + 43] / 222).

Football

• NFL draft data from 2014.  There were 256 draft slots in that year's draft, 255 of which went to former NCAA players (1 player drafted from a Canadian university).  NCAA to Major Pro figure calculated using these data.
• NCAA divisional breakdown of the 255 NCAA players selected in the 2014 NFL draft: Division I FBS (230), Division I FCS (19), Division II (6), Division III (0).  The top 5 conferences accounted for 172 of the 255 draft picks (SEC=49, ACC=42, Pac-12=34, Big Ten=30, Big 12=17).
• Data on Arena League and Canadian Football League opportunities were collected by NCAA staff via rosters on each organization's website (sources: cfl.ca and arenafootball.com) in February 2015.  It was determined that an additional 327 former NCAA student-athletes from the 2014 draft cohort were listed on a roster (190 in the CFL, 137 in the Arena League).  Across these two leagues, there were 203 former Division I FBS players, 74 from Division I FCS, 44 from Division II and 6 from Division III.  These numbers were combined with the NFL draftees to calculate an NCAA to Total Professional opportunities proportion (calculated as [255 + 327] / 15,842). 
• We estimate that 4.0% of draft-eligible Division I players were chosen in the 2014 NFL draft (249 / 6,153).  Limiting this calculation to FBS players, 7.0% were estimated to be drafted (230 / 3,275).  Narrowing further to the five Division I conferences with autonomous governance (ACC, Big Ten, Big 12, Pac-12 and SEC), we estimate that 10.1% were drafted (172 / 1,709).  Accounting for Arena League and CFL opportunities, the NCAA to Total Professional figures are estimated as 8.5% for Division I ([249 + 277] / 6,153), 13.2% for FBS ([230 + 203] / 3,275) and 16.4% for the five autonomous conferences ([172 + 108] / 1,709).

Last Updated: April 14, 2015

Sent from my iPhone

Giants Sign Denard Span - MLB Trade Rumors

I like this deal. Span's the Man!!

It may seem like a poor man's Alex Gordon type of signing with the CF versatility, but I like what Span brings to the table as well. This is a Giants move. Dexter Fowler would have been a Giants move, Zobrist as well. But Span's the Man!! And he didn't cost a prospect, which Ozuna from the Marlins would have. And he didn't cost a draft pick, which Fowler apparently would have.

All things considered, a pretty good deal for the Giants, Span gets incentives if he stays healthy and hits AB marks. The only thing I worry about is that between Span and Pagan, maybe the Giants are playing that old pitching / draft strategy of "take two, because one will break".

Thank God for Gregor Blanco, right? Give that man a raise. 

FROM MLBTRADERUMORS.COM

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2016/01/giants-nearing-deal-with-denard-span.html?ref=digest

Giants Sign Denard Span

January 7th, 2016 at 10:07pm CST • By Jeff ToddThe Giants have announced the signing of free agent outfielder Denard Span to a three-year contract. He'll reportedly receive a $31MM guarantee in the deal, which includes a fourth-year mutual option at $12MM with a $4MM buyout.
Span, who turns 32 in February, can also earn incentives of up to $5MM. He can tack $1MM onto his salary in 2016, and up to $2MM apiece in the following two years, by hitting plate appearance thresholds that culminate at 525 turns at bat annually. Span is a client of the Boras Corporation.

...

And that approach has translated into results. While he doesn't leave the yard very often, Span delivers plenty of extra-base hits with his line-drive and ground-ball heavy stroke. Since joining the Nationals via trade before the 2013 season, he has posted a sturdy .292/.345/.404 batting line, good for a 109 wRC+. And those numbers trended up over his time in D.C.
Of course, the fleet-footed Span also contributes quite a bit on the bases. He's a significant stolen base threat — his 62 steals dating to the start of 2013 rank 22nd in baseball — but the value goes beyond that as well. Span has received positive marks from Fangraphs' BsR metric in every season of his career, making him one of the game's thirty best overall runners in that time frame.
Defensively, Span is a tough player to value. Metrics once valued him as a well-above-average center fielder. But the more recent results suggest that his range has declined. Last year, UZR hit Span with his worst-ever rating and DRS charged him with a rather remarkable -10 defensive runs saved over just 523 innings in the field.