As I sit here, the Winston (I know it hasn't been called that in years, but I still choose to call it by its original name) is in the midst of a rain delay. At first I didn't understand the concept of an all-star event in NASCAR (it is an individual sport, after all), but it's since become one of the few events on the NASCAR calendar I make it a point to watch. Instead of 43 drivers like every other race, it's the best of the best. Twenty guys going all-out for $1 million. It's winner-take-all. Second place gets nothing. As a result, the race is pretty freakin' awesome.
Each major sports league has it's All-Star Game, and NASCAR's is actually pretty good in comparison. While it's not the best, it's certainly not the worst. That honor clearly belongs to...
6. Pro Bowl: Do I need to elaborate at all here? The only thing the Pro Bowl has going for it is that the game is played in Hawaii. Even the players don't care. That's why Roger Goddell makes his annual threat to discontinue the game entirely. Of course, his decision to move the date of the Pro Bowl to the week before the Super Bowl, thus disqualifying players from the two best teams in the league, is one of the major problems the Pro Bowl currently faces. Too many guys drop out for other reasons, too. As a result, we're left with way too many no-name guys from mediocre/bad teams playing in the "All-Star" game. The events surrounding the Pro Bowl aren't that spectacular, either.
5. MLS: Raise your hand if you knew there was such a thing as an MLS All-Star Game. They've actually had one every year since the league was formed. It seems somewhat out-of-place for a soccer league to have an all-star game, but that's something that can be blamed on the North American professional sports system. Anyway, they did East vs. West for a while before settling into the new format where the MLS All-Stars take on a team from England that's on an American tour. It's great that they're able to pull in these international teams, which clearly helps attendance, but I think it's time for them to go back to the old East vs. West format. When they first did it, there were only 10 teams in MLS, so a league-wide all-star team made a lot more sense. MLS has doubled in size since then, though. The league is clearly strong enough to stand on its own and put on an All-Star Game where every player is from MLS.
4. NHL: The NHL All-Star Game is great when it actually happens, but lockouts and Olympic breaks make is so that it isn't played about as frequently as it is. (Although, not playing it in Olympic years makes total sense, and, if given the choice, everyone is picking NHL guys in the Olympics over an All-Star Game.) I'm also not the biggest fan of this whole "choose your own team" format that they currently use. I give them credit for trying something new, and the "All-Star Fantasy Draft" is cool, but it's way too gimmicky. Not only that, it's confusing to have teammates on different teams. (When it's international competition, that's totally different.) The game itself is usually pretty good, though. Hockey needs more offense most of the time. That's not a problem in the All-Star Game. The NHL also has the best corresponding All-Star Weekend event in the Skills Competition, and the All-Star Game jerseys are usually pretty awesome.
3. NASCAR: I rank the Winston as the third-best All-Star Game in all of sports, bascially because I love the simple premise of it. You win, you get $1 million. You finish second, you get nothing. It's old-fashioned racing, made better by the fact that it's under the lights. And with no points on the line and $1 million at stake, it's some of the best racing you're gonna see. Everybody's going all-out for the win, which makes the finish ridiculously exciting. Sure, the idea of an individual sport having "All-Stars" is still somewhat confusing, but all that means is it's the 20 guys you know with all those random schmos who aren't going to win and just get in the way taken out of the equation. Those drivers still get a chance. There's a qualifying race beforehand, and the top two advance. There's also a fan vote for one additional driver. It would be nice if they didn't change the rules every year. Other than that, no complaints here about the Winston.
2. NBA: The NBA is a superstar's league, which is why their All-Star Game works so well. Nobody plays defense, but that's not a problem. Because that's not what the fans are paying to see. They want to see dunks and ridiculous plays. With all the superlative talents in the NBA, providing that stuff is easy. It makes for good entertainment, too. Except, only five guys can be on the floor at one time, and there's only one ball. Regardless, there isn't really much to compain about with the actual NBA All-Star Game. I don't watch it, but that has more to do with my disdain for the NBA as a whole than anything else. The NBA also boasts an entertainment event that no other league can compete with. The Slam Dunk Contest is a spectacle in its own right. I still prefer the NHL Skills Competition because that involves everyone on both All-Star teams, but the NBA's got a pretty nice setup with the slam dunk and three-point contests.
1. MLB: The original All-Star Game is still the best. Say what you want about the whole All-Star Game deciding home field advantage in the World Series thing, but if that's the biggest people have with the MLB All-Star Game, you know they're doing something right. Sure, the tie in Milwaukee was bad, but I think they've recovered from that (and with the roster adjustments they've made since, that'll never happen again). Sure, baseball is the sport that most lends itself to an All-Star Game. The batters come to the plate one at a time, and every at-bat is a one-on-one battle between batter and pitcher. It's been that way since the game was invented. The system worked long before they attached "meaning" to the game, and I don't think things have really changed that much since. And the biggest rule change they've made to the All-Star game is making it so that both teams use a DH every year, which I think we can all agree is for the best. Nobody wants to see a pitcher hit in an All-Star Game, and you'd be pinch-hitting for them every time anyway. Let's not forget the incredible awesomeness of the Home Run Derby, either. It's the only All-Star Game broadcast on national TV, as well as the only major league sporting event on that Monday and Tuesday in mid-July. I'm not saying that helps make the MLB All-Star Game the best, but it certainly doesn't hurt either.
Saturday, May 18, 2013
Thursday, May 16, 2013
WAR, What Is It Good For? (Absolutely Nothing)
Baseball has a statistic for everything, and baseball people love their stats. Every time you watch a show like MLB Tonight or Baseball Tonight, there's inevitably going to be a Peter Gammons or a Tim Kurkjian speaking in code, spewing out this vast array of different numbers that are difficult to understand. MLB Network even has a new show called Clubhouse Confidential, where Brian Kenney and Harold Reynolds get into an old-school/new-school debate.
Of course, Old School vs. New School really went head-to-head in last year's AL MVP race. On one hand, you had Mike Trout, the sabermetrician's dream. On the other was Triple Crown winner Miguel Cabrera. Fortunately, the writers got it right and awarded the MVP to Cabrera. Trout's WAR wasn't enough to sway the voters over the more traditional numbers. Nor should it have. Because of all the "stats" that I disdain the most, WAR is right up there with OPS. I hate both of these made up "statistics," and I hate it even more that they're the be-all, end-all point used by some statheads to prove the validity of their argument.
Let's start with OPS. OPS stands for "on-base + slugging," and it has really become en vogue over the past couple of years. I understand the idea behind wanting to combine these two numbers into one thing. It shows a guy's ability to get on base while also hitting for power. But here's the problem (and why I hate OPS so much): the way OPS is determined is entirely wrong.
People come up with it by simply adding the two numbers together. If a guy's on-base percentage is .300 and his slugging percentage is .500, then his OPS is listed as .800. But it's not. On base percentage is hits+walks+hit by pitches divided by total plate appearances. Slugging percentage is total bases divided by plate appearances. So, OPS is then hits+walks+hit by pitches+total bases divided by plate appearances. A single counts as a hit for on-base percentage purposes, but is also one total base for slugging percentage purposes. That's why you can't simply add the numbers together. You're counting a single twice. Once as a hit (in OBP) and once as a total base (in slugging). The formula should be total bases+walks+hit by pitches. Until they realize that and start figuring it out correctly, I'm not going to be jumping aboard the OPS bandwagon.
But OPS is nowhere near as ridiculous as WAR. WAR stands for "Wins Above Replacement." What does that even mean? The "replacement" is a hypothetical Quadruple-A player (the key word here is hypothetical). There isn't even a standard formula to calculate it. In other words, it's completely arbitrary. That's one of my biggest problems with WAR.
The sabermetric community loves this "stat" because it factors things like baserunning and defense in with the standard counting statistics to determine a player's "true value to his team." But there's no real, tangible way to measure a player's defense. The WAR people have developed their various fielding metrics, such as defensive runs saved and ultimate zone rating, but again, these stats are totally arbitrary. Bottom line is there are way too many subjective elements that go into WAR for it to be considered a credible metric.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not entirely opposed to all of these new-school statistics. WHIP, which has become very popular in fantasy baseball, is incredibly useful. Walks+hits per inning pitched. In other words, how many runners a pitcher puts on base per inning.
Likewise, I'm a big fan of BABIP, which stands for "batting average on balls in play." It takes strikeouts out of the equation. Some guys, especially power hitters, strike out a lot. That's why they end up hitting .220 every year, even though everybody knows they're actually a much better hitter than that. The thing I like about BABIP is that it has just as much value for pitchers as it does for hitters. How often does he get outs other than via strikeout?
Sabermetrics has its proponents, and they're not going to go away. I understand and accept that. But if I had to pick a side, I'd have to consider myself "old school." Proponents of sabermetrics have tried to find a way to determine a player's value beyond the traditional numbers. I give them credit for trying. And some of it is definitely worthwhile. Just not enough.
Of course, Old School vs. New School really went head-to-head in last year's AL MVP race. On one hand, you had Mike Trout, the sabermetrician's dream. On the other was Triple Crown winner Miguel Cabrera. Fortunately, the writers got it right and awarded the MVP to Cabrera. Trout's WAR wasn't enough to sway the voters over the more traditional numbers. Nor should it have. Because of all the "stats" that I disdain the most, WAR is right up there with OPS. I hate both of these made up "statistics," and I hate it even more that they're the be-all, end-all point used by some statheads to prove the validity of their argument.
Let's start with OPS. OPS stands for "on-base + slugging," and it has really become en vogue over the past couple of years. I understand the idea behind wanting to combine these two numbers into one thing. It shows a guy's ability to get on base while also hitting for power. But here's the problem (and why I hate OPS so much): the way OPS is determined is entirely wrong.
People come up with it by simply adding the two numbers together. If a guy's on-base percentage is .300 and his slugging percentage is .500, then his OPS is listed as .800. But it's not. On base percentage is hits+walks+hit by pitches divided by total plate appearances. Slugging percentage is total bases divided by plate appearances. So, OPS is then hits+walks+hit by pitches+total bases divided by plate appearances. A single counts as a hit for on-base percentage purposes, but is also one total base for slugging percentage purposes. That's why you can't simply add the numbers together. You're counting a single twice. Once as a hit (in OBP) and once as a total base (in slugging). The formula should be total bases+walks+hit by pitches. Until they realize that and start figuring it out correctly, I'm not going to be jumping aboard the OPS bandwagon.
But OPS is nowhere near as ridiculous as WAR. WAR stands for "Wins Above Replacement." What does that even mean? The "replacement" is a hypothetical Quadruple-A player (the key word here is hypothetical). There isn't even a standard formula to calculate it. In other words, it's completely arbitrary. That's one of my biggest problems with WAR.
The sabermetric community loves this "stat" because it factors things like baserunning and defense in with the standard counting statistics to determine a player's "true value to his team." But there's no real, tangible way to measure a player's defense. The WAR people have developed their various fielding metrics, such as defensive runs saved and ultimate zone rating, but again, these stats are totally arbitrary. Bottom line is there are way too many subjective elements that go into WAR for it to be considered a credible metric.
Don't get me wrong. I'm not entirely opposed to all of these new-school statistics. WHIP, which has become very popular in fantasy baseball, is incredibly useful. Walks+hits per inning pitched. In other words, how many runners a pitcher puts on base per inning.
Likewise, I'm a big fan of BABIP, which stands for "batting average on balls in play." It takes strikeouts out of the equation. Some guys, especially power hitters, strike out a lot. That's why they end up hitting .220 every year, even though everybody knows they're actually a much better hitter than that. The thing I like about BABIP is that it has just as much value for pitchers as it does for hitters. How often does he get outs other than via strikeout?
Sabermetrics has its proponents, and they're not going to go away. I understand and accept that. But if I had to pick a side, I'd have to consider myself "old school." Proponents of sabermetrics have tried to find a way to determine a player's value beyond the traditional numbers. I give them credit for trying. And some of it is definitely worthwhile. Just not enough.
Wednesday, May 15, 2013
Less Is More, At Least It Should Be
Why do we let the NHL have control of anything? The Winter Classic is perhaps the best thing that league ever did. The NHL finally had a signature event to call its own. So, of course, they had to ruin it by having their quasi-annual lockout. Then you figured the lockout would be settled in time because there was no way they would cancel the Winter Classic. Wrong.
After cancelling this year's Winter Classic, they did the right thing and announced that the same two teams--the Red Wings and Maple Leafs--will play in the 2014 Winter Classic at the same venue--The Big House at the University of Michigan. Well done, NHL. Likewise, the Heritage Classic will return next season with the Senators visiting the Canucks. (Sidebar, why did they wait until after Vancouver hosted the Olympics to make BC Place an open-air stadium?) Then they got carried away, announcing the creation of the NHL Stadium Series.
How do you take the luster off your signature event? By completely eliminating the novelty of it. Along with the occasional Heritage Classic, the Winter Classic was the only outdoor game on the NHL schedule. That's exactly why it worked. It's the NHL's Super Bowl. It became the event that everybody wanted to host, even places where playing a winter sport outdoors makes little to no sense (I'm talking to you, LA). Way to take something great and completely destroy it. One or two outdoor games equals must-see TV. But seven? Seven is overkill.
Instead of being the only outdoor games next season, the Winter Classic and Heritage Classic will bookend the NHL Stadium Series, which also includes games in LA and Chicago, as well as two in Yankee Stadium. I get what they're trying to do with the Stadium Series. I really do. They're trying to capitalize on the Winter Classic's popularity and give other cities the opportunity to host (they've been wanting to have a Winter Classic at Yankee Stadium for a while anyway). But I think we might be looking at too much of a good thing here. When it comes to outdoor NHL games, less is more.
It's not as if I have a problem with any of the games they've chosen. The Penguins and Blackhawks are two of the best (and most popular) teams in the NHL, and that could easily be a Stanley Cup Finals rematch. And like I said, they've been wanting to have the Rangers host the Winter Classic in Yankee Stadium for quite some time. They were supposed to host one at the Old Stadium before it closed, and they haven't been able to at the new one because of the Pinstripe Bowl (don't get me started on how stupid I think that game is).
Now they're taking advantage of Super Bowl fever (again, don't get me started; I might be the only person in New York who's anti-Giants Stadium Super Bowl) by staging not one but TWO hockey games at Yankee Stadium during the lead-up to the Super Bowl. And all three New York hockey teams will get to participate. The Rangers will be the visiting team in each, taking on the Devils first, then the Islanders. This isn't really where my problem lies.
My problem lies with the Ducks-Kings game at Dodger Stadium. Again, the matchup is a good one. Two rivals, both of which happen to be really good, in a historic venue. But sunny Southern California isn't exactly the first place that comes to mind when people think about outdoor hockey. (Until Wayne Gretzky came to town, the idea of even playing hockey period in Los Angeles seemed somewhat ridiculous.) Canadian kids out there with their wool hats in freezing temperatures. That's the grassroots, remembering why you fell in love with the game element that they were going for when they first conceived of the outdoor games. Not random dudes wearing shorts and sunglasses with their hockey jerseys on a 70-degree day.
I'll never forget that first Heritage Classic. It was a Saturday night in Edmonton, and to say it was cold would be an incredible understatement. You could see the players' breaths, and the indelible image of that game will always be Jose Theodore wearing a touque over his goalie mask. Or that first Winter Classic in Buffalo. When it started snowing in the middle of the game. And everybody loved it. Somehow, snow made it better. Well, that ain't gonna happen in LA. And you want to talk playing conditions? Good luck keeping the ice playable.
In my opinion, the NHL is biting off more than it can chew here. They're trying to overcompensate for losing last year's Winter Classic and build some momentum heading into/out of the Olympics (even though they haven't officially committed to playing yet). Maybe the Stadium Series will work and multiple outdoor games will become the new norm. But I hope not. The Winter Classic and Heritage Classic should be special. That's when the NHL brings its game outside. Why can't it stay that way? And if you're going to play outdoors, at least do it somewhere cold. Like Canada. Not California.
After cancelling this year's Winter Classic, they did the right thing and announced that the same two teams--the Red Wings and Maple Leafs--will play in the 2014 Winter Classic at the same venue--The Big House at the University of Michigan. Well done, NHL. Likewise, the Heritage Classic will return next season with the Senators visiting the Canucks. (Sidebar, why did they wait until after Vancouver hosted the Olympics to make BC Place an open-air stadium?) Then they got carried away, announcing the creation of the NHL Stadium Series.
How do you take the luster off your signature event? By completely eliminating the novelty of it. Along with the occasional Heritage Classic, the Winter Classic was the only outdoor game on the NHL schedule. That's exactly why it worked. It's the NHL's Super Bowl. It became the event that everybody wanted to host, even places where playing a winter sport outdoors makes little to no sense (I'm talking to you, LA). Way to take something great and completely destroy it. One or two outdoor games equals must-see TV. But seven? Seven is overkill.
Instead of being the only outdoor games next season, the Winter Classic and Heritage Classic will bookend the NHL Stadium Series, which also includes games in LA and Chicago, as well as two in Yankee Stadium. I get what they're trying to do with the Stadium Series. I really do. They're trying to capitalize on the Winter Classic's popularity and give other cities the opportunity to host (they've been wanting to have a Winter Classic at Yankee Stadium for a while anyway). But I think we might be looking at too much of a good thing here. When it comes to outdoor NHL games, less is more.
It's not as if I have a problem with any of the games they've chosen. The Penguins and Blackhawks are two of the best (and most popular) teams in the NHL, and that could easily be a Stanley Cup Finals rematch. And like I said, they've been wanting to have the Rangers host the Winter Classic in Yankee Stadium for quite some time. They were supposed to host one at the Old Stadium before it closed, and they haven't been able to at the new one because of the Pinstripe Bowl (don't get me started on how stupid I think that game is).
Now they're taking advantage of Super Bowl fever (again, don't get me started; I might be the only person in New York who's anti-Giants Stadium Super Bowl) by staging not one but TWO hockey games at Yankee Stadium during the lead-up to the Super Bowl. And all three New York hockey teams will get to participate. The Rangers will be the visiting team in each, taking on the Devils first, then the Islanders. This isn't really where my problem lies.
My problem lies with the Ducks-Kings game at Dodger Stadium. Again, the matchup is a good one. Two rivals, both of which happen to be really good, in a historic venue. But sunny Southern California isn't exactly the first place that comes to mind when people think about outdoor hockey. (Until Wayne Gretzky came to town, the idea of even playing hockey period in Los Angeles seemed somewhat ridiculous.) Canadian kids out there with their wool hats in freezing temperatures. That's the grassroots, remembering why you fell in love with the game element that they were going for when they first conceived of the outdoor games. Not random dudes wearing shorts and sunglasses with their hockey jerseys on a 70-degree day.
I'll never forget that first Heritage Classic. It was a Saturday night in Edmonton, and to say it was cold would be an incredible understatement. You could see the players' breaths, and the indelible image of that game will always be Jose Theodore wearing a touque over his goalie mask. Or that first Winter Classic in Buffalo. When it started snowing in the middle of the game. And everybody loved it. Somehow, snow made it better. Well, that ain't gonna happen in LA. And you want to talk playing conditions? Good luck keeping the ice playable.
In my opinion, the NHL is biting off more than it can chew here. They're trying to overcompensate for losing last year's Winter Classic and build some momentum heading into/out of the Olympics (even though they haven't officially committed to playing yet). Maybe the Stadium Series will work and multiple outdoor games will become the new norm. But I hope not. The Winter Classic and Heritage Classic should be special. That's when the NHL brings its game outside. Why can't it stay that way? And if you're going to play outdoors, at least do it somewhere cold. Like Canada. Not California.
Monday, May 13, 2013
Ready For Round 2
The first round of the Stanley Cup Playoffs proved to just as unpredictable as I expected. Chicago didn't do anything to disprove that they're the best team in the West, while Pittsburgh was lucky to survive the Islanders. The most impressive teams, though, might've been Ottawa and San Jose. The Canucks get a lot of the credit for the Sharks' sweep, but the Senators-Canadiens series was all Ottawa. Carey Price's injury certainly played a part, but even if he's healthy, the Canadiens don't win that series the way Ottawa played.
And true to form, playoff hockey gave us plenty of overtime. Every series had at least one overtime game, and there were a total of 17 overtime periods, which averages out to a little more than two per series. Detroit-Anaheim had four, and the Red Wings' only regulation win was Game 7. That series could've gone either way. But Detroit found a way, like they seemingly always do, setting up one final playoff showdown with their archrival Blackhawks before the Red Wings move East for some reason next year. That series is certainly the highlight of Round 2, but all four of them look pretty good on paper.
(1) Penguins vs. (7) Senators: Pittsburgh certainly got all they could handle from the Islanders. And then some. They were outplayed for a good portion of the series and if they don't make that goalie change prior to Game 5, they might not even advance. Marc-Andre Fleury was flat-out terrible in Games 1-4. Thomas Vokoun saved the series (and the season), which entitles him the right to start this series. It would be a mistake to go back to Fleury now. The Penguins offense needs to click, too. They showed flashes of how explosive they can be against the Islanders, but have to be more consistent. As for the Senators, they didn't do much wrong against Montreal. Offense? Great. Defense? Great. Goaltending? Great. They outplayed the Canadiens from the start and, as a result, wrapped up their series earlier than the other three East teams. Will everything they did right carry over, or will the rest be a bad thing? I reiterate that Pittsburgh is the best team and should win. But that was also true about Montreal. The Penguins know they were lucky to get past the Islanders. They also know that they'll have to up their game significantly against the Senators. I think they will. Pittsburgh in six.
(4) Bruins vs. (6) Rangers: How incredible was that comeback by the Bruins in Game 7? They blew a 3-1 series lead and were down 4-1 in the third period before coming back to win in overtime. Incredible. That's the mark of a championship-caliber team. It was quite a comeback by the Rangers, too, but for that, the credit goes to one man. I said before the Capitals series that Henrik Lundqvist was the best player in that series and might prove to be the difference. Back-to-back shutouts in Games 6 and 7, with his team facing elimination in each, certainly proved me right. After those two seven-game thrillers, we get an Original Six matchup (we've got two of them!) between two evenly-matched teams. I'm expecting this series to be low-scoring with a lot of one-goal games. Special teams could end up being a big key. The Rangers' power play has to be better than it was against Washington. So does the offense. They can't rely on Lundqvist to win every game for them. Boston's defense will make scoring tough, though. That's why taking advantage of power play chances will be so important. Bottom line, though, is that Boston is the better team. I think the Bruins have a shot against the Penguins. They need to beat the Rangers first, and I give the Bruins an edge that's ever so slight. Both of these teams have gotten accustomed to playing seven games in the playoffs. This series will be no different. The Bruins win Game 7 at their Garden.
(1) Blackhawks vs. (7) Red Wings: The only good thing about Detroit beating Anaheim is that this classic rivalry gets a fitting final chapter. And to put it right up there with those Blackhawks-Red Wings matchups of the past, I hope we get a long series. Chicago's the best team in the Western Conference, if not the entire NHL. They proved that against Minnesota. But the Red Wings are kind of like the St. Louis Cardinals. You can never count them out until they're officially eliminated. Did luck come into play in the Anaheim series? Probably a little. But you can't discredit the playoff experience of this battle-tested Red Wings squad, either. If there's any team that knows Chicago well, it's the Red Wings. They're actually very similar squads. The Blackhawks' core is younger and, in my opinion, slightly more talented, though. And Corey Crawford was out of his mind against the Wild. I don't want to discout Detroit entirely. Especially with this team, I know better. But I think Chicago's talent will win the day. It'll be intense, hard-fought, physical hockey. Hockey fans everywhere, and especially those at NBC, are hoping this one goes the distance. If it does, give me the Blackhawks in Game 7.
(5) Kings vs. (6) Sharks: This is perhaps the most even of the four matchups. The Kings spotted St. Louis two games, then reminded everybody why they won the Cup last year. Once LA got going, the Blues didn't have a chance. In the battle of playoff underachievers, the Sharks got the better of Vancouver. The Sharks did everything right, the Canucks did virtually nothing right, and San Jose pulled off the only sweep of round one. For a veteran team, I think the rest will be a benefit in this case. San Jose's got all the talent in the world, and is always one of the best regular season teams in the league. Are we finally seeing a Sharks playoff run? But speaking of playoff runs, this is the first time in their six playoff series over the past two seasons that the Kings have home ice. That obviously hasn't stopped them. I'm curious to see if starting the series at home will actually have the reverse effect. Both teams should also benefit by the fact that the entire series will be played in California. No dramatic time changes or weird start times to mess with their bodies. It should improve the quality of play. This series is a definite toss-up. If the Sharks that played against Vancouver show up, they'll be very tough to beat. Even for the defending champions. Meanwhile, the Kings are just getting revved up. I recommed staying up late to watch these games, 'cause this sereis should be good. Call me crazy, but I'm going to keep playing my hunch about the Sharks. I'm going to say San Jose in six.
And true to form, playoff hockey gave us plenty of overtime. Every series had at least one overtime game, and there were a total of 17 overtime periods, which averages out to a little more than two per series. Detroit-Anaheim had four, and the Red Wings' only regulation win was Game 7. That series could've gone either way. But Detroit found a way, like they seemingly always do, setting up one final playoff showdown with their archrival Blackhawks before the Red Wings move East for some reason next year. That series is certainly the highlight of Round 2, but all four of them look pretty good on paper.
(1) Penguins vs. (7) Senators: Pittsburgh certainly got all they could handle from the Islanders. And then some. They were outplayed for a good portion of the series and if they don't make that goalie change prior to Game 5, they might not even advance. Marc-Andre Fleury was flat-out terrible in Games 1-4. Thomas Vokoun saved the series (and the season), which entitles him the right to start this series. It would be a mistake to go back to Fleury now. The Penguins offense needs to click, too. They showed flashes of how explosive they can be against the Islanders, but have to be more consistent. As for the Senators, they didn't do much wrong against Montreal. Offense? Great. Defense? Great. Goaltending? Great. They outplayed the Canadiens from the start and, as a result, wrapped up their series earlier than the other three East teams. Will everything they did right carry over, or will the rest be a bad thing? I reiterate that Pittsburgh is the best team and should win. But that was also true about Montreal. The Penguins know they were lucky to get past the Islanders. They also know that they'll have to up their game significantly against the Senators. I think they will. Pittsburgh in six.
(4) Bruins vs. (6) Rangers: How incredible was that comeback by the Bruins in Game 7? They blew a 3-1 series lead and were down 4-1 in the third period before coming back to win in overtime. Incredible. That's the mark of a championship-caliber team. It was quite a comeback by the Rangers, too, but for that, the credit goes to one man. I said before the Capitals series that Henrik Lundqvist was the best player in that series and might prove to be the difference. Back-to-back shutouts in Games 6 and 7, with his team facing elimination in each, certainly proved me right. After those two seven-game thrillers, we get an Original Six matchup (we've got two of them!) between two evenly-matched teams. I'm expecting this series to be low-scoring with a lot of one-goal games. Special teams could end up being a big key. The Rangers' power play has to be better than it was against Washington. So does the offense. They can't rely on Lundqvist to win every game for them. Boston's defense will make scoring tough, though. That's why taking advantage of power play chances will be so important. Bottom line, though, is that Boston is the better team. I think the Bruins have a shot against the Penguins. They need to beat the Rangers first, and I give the Bruins an edge that's ever so slight. Both of these teams have gotten accustomed to playing seven games in the playoffs. This series will be no different. The Bruins win Game 7 at their Garden.
(1) Blackhawks vs. (7) Red Wings: The only good thing about Detroit beating Anaheim is that this classic rivalry gets a fitting final chapter. And to put it right up there with those Blackhawks-Red Wings matchups of the past, I hope we get a long series. Chicago's the best team in the Western Conference, if not the entire NHL. They proved that against Minnesota. But the Red Wings are kind of like the St. Louis Cardinals. You can never count them out until they're officially eliminated. Did luck come into play in the Anaheim series? Probably a little. But you can't discredit the playoff experience of this battle-tested Red Wings squad, either. If there's any team that knows Chicago well, it's the Red Wings. They're actually very similar squads. The Blackhawks' core is younger and, in my opinion, slightly more talented, though. And Corey Crawford was out of his mind against the Wild. I don't want to discout Detroit entirely. Especially with this team, I know better. But I think Chicago's talent will win the day. It'll be intense, hard-fought, physical hockey. Hockey fans everywhere, and especially those at NBC, are hoping this one goes the distance. If it does, give me the Blackhawks in Game 7.
(5) Kings vs. (6) Sharks: This is perhaps the most even of the four matchups. The Kings spotted St. Louis two games, then reminded everybody why they won the Cup last year. Once LA got going, the Blues didn't have a chance. In the battle of playoff underachievers, the Sharks got the better of Vancouver. The Sharks did everything right, the Canucks did virtually nothing right, and San Jose pulled off the only sweep of round one. For a veteran team, I think the rest will be a benefit in this case. San Jose's got all the talent in the world, and is always one of the best regular season teams in the league. Are we finally seeing a Sharks playoff run? But speaking of playoff runs, this is the first time in their six playoff series over the past two seasons that the Kings have home ice. That obviously hasn't stopped them. I'm curious to see if starting the series at home will actually have the reverse effect. Both teams should also benefit by the fact that the entire series will be played in California. No dramatic time changes or weird start times to mess with their bodies. It should improve the quality of play. This series is a definite toss-up. If the Sharks that played against Vancouver show up, they'll be very tough to beat. Even for the defending champions. Meanwhile, the Kings are just getting revved up. I recommed staying up late to watch these games, 'cause this sereis should be good. Call me crazy, but I'm going to keep playing my hunch about the Sharks. I'm going to say San Jose in six.
Friday, May 10, 2013
After Review, We're Still Wrong
Remember the baseball game scene in the original Naked Gun movie? The one where Frank Drebin pretended to be an umpire so that he could figure out who was trying to kill the Queen? Remember how ridiculously (and hilariously) bad some of his calls were? Well, hasn't it felt like Frank Drebin has actually been hired as a real Major League umpire over the past couple days?
It's been a rough week for umpires. First, you had the Indians-A's game on Wednesday night. Oakland's game-tying homer in the top of the ninth was called a double on the field, but they went to the replay to make sure. The replay showed (pretty clearly) that the ball was well over the yellow line on the top of the wall that indicates a home run. It hit a freakin' railing that was four or five feet above the line. Clear as day to anybody with two eyes. Except, apparently, the four guys whose job it was to get the call right. They told the runner to stay at second. What?
Fast forward to last night. The Angles were playing the Astros in Houston. Anaheim sent up a pinch hitter in the top of the seventh, and Houston countered by bringing in a lefty. Mike Scioscia didn't want the lefty-lefty matchup, so he sent up another pinch hitter, who was right-handed. To which Houston manager Bo Porter countered by bringing in a right-hander...while the other guy was still warming up. The rules are pretty clear about pitching changes. Once you make a change, the new pitcher has to stay in for at least one hitter or until an out is made (via pickoff, caught stealing, whatever). Scioscia came out and argued this point. Bo Porter obviously didn't know the rule. And apparently the umpires didn't either. Fortunately, it didn't cost the Angels the game. Same can't be said for the A's, though.
Joe Torre came out and said what we all knew in each case. The umps effed up. Wow, that's reassuring. I'm sure it really makes the A's feel better to know that Major League Baseball acknowledged they got screwed out of a home run. At least with the Angels-Astros game, they took the step of suspending Fielden Cublreth two games. But why not the whole crew? They should all know the rules. As such, the entire crew should've been suspended. Not just the crew chief.
But the whole pitching change thing, as bad as it was, doesn't bother me as much as what happened in the Oakland-Cleveland game. Umpires are human. They're going to get calls wrong. That's the reason they have replay. You can look at the video to correct those human errors. They're even talking about expanding it to cover those bang-bang plays that are easy to get wrong. Things like trap or catch and fair or foul. Nobody likes being proven wrong, but I'd rather that than my mistake affecting the outcome of a game.
That's why I still simply cannot understand what happened in the Oakland-Cleveland game. The ball hit the railing above the wall. It was clear as day. The A's knew it. The Indians knew it. Everybody in the stadium knew it. Everybody who saw the replay knew it. So what exactly were the umpires looking at in the replay room? They got the call wrong. It happens. But to compound the problem by coming out after looking at the replay and getting it wrong again? Inexcusable.
As Mark Mulder said on Baseball Tonight following that debacle, "If you're going to use replay and still not get it right, what's the point in having replay at all?" I totally agree. And the excuse the umpires used afterwards was that there wasn't "inconclusive" evidence to overturn the call. Huh? How much more inconclusive can you get? If a ball hitting a railing five feet above the fence isn't inconclusive evidence of a home run, what is? (On Baseball Tonight last night, they spot-shadowed every home run ball in relation to the fence in the Indians-A's game. It was hilarious.)
The other real problem is the lack of accountability. Major League managers and players are required to do postgame media sessions. But when an umpire's bad call has a bearing on the outcome of the game, nothing. Maybe a one-sentence written statement, but that's about it. Why does that have to be? Take the kid gloves off. If managers and players have to talk to the media, umpires should have to as well. Let the reporters ask their questions. Don't hide behind prepared statements. You're not protecting them. And, this just in, they're grown men. They don't need protection. Let them be held accountable.
One of the umpires I respect the most is Jim Joyce. Remember when Joyce blew a call at first base, calling a runner safe who was clearly out, costing the Tigers' Armando Galarraga a perfect game? After seeing the video, Joyce spoke to the media, acknowledged he made a bad call, and admitted how badly he felt that he was the reason Galarraga didn't throw a perfect game. Joyce went so far as apologizing to Galarraga. Both men handled the entire situation with such grace and class. It was truly exceptional.
If Jim Joyce can blow a call, but take the high road and actually talk about it, all the while handling the criticism he received like a man, why can't others? Why is that the exception instead of the rule? Umpires aren't perfect. They're going to make mistakes. There's no reason for this "Holier than Thou" tactic when it comes to controversial calls. Keeping the umpires away from the media doesn't help these situations at all. In fact, it only makes them worse.
It's been a rough week for umpires. First, you had the Indians-A's game on Wednesday night. Oakland's game-tying homer in the top of the ninth was called a double on the field, but they went to the replay to make sure. The replay showed (pretty clearly) that the ball was well over the yellow line on the top of the wall that indicates a home run. It hit a freakin' railing that was four or five feet above the line. Clear as day to anybody with two eyes. Except, apparently, the four guys whose job it was to get the call right. They told the runner to stay at second. What?
Fast forward to last night. The Angles were playing the Astros in Houston. Anaheim sent up a pinch hitter in the top of the seventh, and Houston countered by bringing in a lefty. Mike Scioscia didn't want the lefty-lefty matchup, so he sent up another pinch hitter, who was right-handed. To which Houston manager Bo Porter countered by bringing in a right-hander...while the other guy was still warming up. The rules are pretty clear about pitching changes. Once you make a change, the new pitcher has to stay in for at least one hitter or until an out is made (via pickoff, caught stealing, whatever). Scioscia came out and argued this point. Bo Porter obviously didn't know the rule. And apparently the umpires didn't either. Fortunately, it didn't cost the Angels the game. Same can't be said for the A's, though.
Joe Torre came out and said what we all knew in each case. The umps effed up. Wow, that's reassuring. I'm sure it really makes the A's feel better to know that Major League Baseball acknowledged they got screwed out of a home run. At least with the Angels-Astros game, they took the step of suspending Fielden Cublreth two games. But why not the whole crew? They should all know the rules. As such, the entire crew should've been suspended. Not just the crew chief.
But the whole pitching change thing, as bad as it was, doesn't bother me as much as what happened in the Oakland-Cleveland game. Umpires are human. They're going to get calls wrong. That's the reason they have replay. You can look at the video to correct those human errors. They're even talking about expanding it to cover those bang-bang plays that are easy to get wrong. Things like trap or catch and fair or foul. Nobody likes being proven wrong, but I'd rather that than my mistake affecting the outcome of a game.
That's why I still simply cannot understand what happened in the Oakland-Cleveland game. The ball hit the railing above the wall. It was clear as day. The A's knew it. The Indians knew it. Everybody in the stadium knew it. Everybody who saw the replay knew it. So what exactly were the umpires looking at in the replay room? They got the call wrong. It happens. But to compound the problem by coming out after looking at the replay and getting it wrong again? Inexcusable.
As Mark Mulder said on Baseball Tonight following that debacle, "If you're going to use replay and still not get it right, what's the point in having replay at all?" I totally agree. And the excuse the umpires used afterwards was that there wasn't "inconclusive" evidence to overturn the call. Huh? How much more inconclusive can you get? If a ball hitting a railing five feet above the fence isn't inconclusive evidence of a home run, what is? (On Baseball Tonight last night, they spot-shadowed every home run ball in relation to the fence in the Indians-A's game. It was hilarious.)
The other real problem is the lack of accountability. Major League managers and players are required to do postgame media sessions. But when an umpire's bad call has a bearing on the outcome of the game, nothing. Maybe a one-sentence written statement, but that's about it. Why does that have to be? Take the kid gloves off. If managers and players have to talk to the media, umpires should have to as well. Let the reporters ask their questions. Don't hide behind prepared statements. You're not protecting them. And, this just in, they're grown men. They don't need protection. Let them be held accountable.
One of the umpires I respect the most is Jim Joyce. Remember when Joyce blew a call at first base, calling a runner safe who was clearly out, costing the Tigers' Armando Galarraga a perfect game? After seeing the video, Joyce spoke to the media, acknowledged he made a bad call, and admitted how badly he felt that he was the reason Galarraga didn't throw a perfect game. Joyce went so far as apologizing to Galarraga. Both men handled the entire situation with such grace and class. It was truly exceptional.
If Jim Joyce can blow a call, but take the high road and actually talk about it, all the while handling the criticism he received like a man, why can't others? Why is that the exception instead of the rule? Umpires aren't perfect. They're going to make mistakes. There's no reason for this "Holier than Thou" tactic when it comes to controversial calls. Keeping the umpires away from the media doesn't help these situations at all. In fact, it only makes them worse.
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
An Intriguing Interleague Idea
I didn't come up with this idea. I saw it a couple weeks ago on ESPN.com, and I thought it was an interesting idea. Then the Yankees began a three-game series in Colorado tonight with a grand total of FOUR available position players on the bench, one of which was the backup catcher, one of which was Travis Hafner, and two of which were left-handed hitting outfielders. Not much flexibility in the way of double-switches. Anyway, the idea that was proposed was allowing teams to expand their roster to 26 players for interleague games.
With interleague play now taking place throughout the season, you've got American League pitchers hitting in April and National League teams using a DH in September. I don't have a problem with this schedule at all, but it definitely changes the way you have to construct your roster, at least for three games.
In the past, when teams played their interleague games in a designated window, everybody would fenagle their rosters for the road games. If a National League team played all three of its road series in a row, they might call up somebody from the minor leagues for the sole purpose of DHing those nine games, then immediately send them back down. Other NL teams might take it the other way and add another relief pitcher, since the AL game is much more matchup-driven.
Likewise, how many times did the Red Sox face the David Ortiz dilemma when they had an extended interleague road trip? There's no solution to having a DH that can't play anywhere on the field, but maybe an AL team would want an extra position player just to have a little more flexibility. You obviously need to use a pinch hitter a lot more often in the National League, but an extra position player could also be useful as a late-game defensive sub or you might need a utility guy in case of a double switch. If you don't have a long man out of the bullpen for a couple days, so be it.
If teams were allowed to expand their roster to 26 for interleague play only, it would save teams from having to make those sort of decisions. An NL team wants to add a DH? Sure. Go ahead. An AL team wants to add that extra bat off the bench? By all means. And that way, teams would also be able to make these roster changes without dropping a relief pitcher, which is usually what they have to do. It could easily work the other way, too. You're facing a lefty-heavy lineup and want to add a left-handed reliever? Go for it. The only choice left to be made is add a pitcher or add a position player?
Of course, there would have to be certain restrictions to this rule. If you're calling somebody up, they get sent back down immediately. I'd also give teams the option of activating somebody off the DL to fill that 26th roster spot. Should they do that, they need to drop a like player. If you activate a pitcher, a different pitcher has to get sent down once the roster is reduced back to 25. Same thing with position players. If you add one, you drop one. Just like they do when there's an injury in the postseason.
I'm not saying this is a perfect idea or that there's necessarily a problem with leaving it at 25. Just throwing it out there. Although, I think it's something that could definitely have the potential to catch on. They've already done something similar with doubleheaders. It's more a consideration for bullpens and the fact that you'll need two starting pitchers, but teams are allowed to use a 26-man roster for doubleheaders now. Similar thought process here.
Year-round interleague play is going to take some getting used-to. For all involved. (I'm already on board.) But I think the option of using a 26th player for interleague games is an intriguing possibility that could help make that adjustment a little bit easier.
With interleague play now taking place throughout the season, you've got American League pitchers hitting in April and National League teams using a DH in September. I don't have a problem with this schedule at all, but it definitely changes the way you have to construct your roster, at least for three games.
In the past, when teams played their interleague games in a designated window, everybody would fenagle their rosters for the road games. If a National League team played all three of its road series in a row, they might call up somebody from the minor leagues for the sole purpose of DHing those nine games, then immediately send them back down. Other NL teams might take it the other way and add another relief pitcher, since the AL game is much more matchup-driven.
Likewise, how many times did the Red Sox face the David Ortiz dilemma when they had an extended interleague road trip? There's no solution to having a DH that can't play anywhere on the field, but maybe an AL team would want an extra position player just to have a little more flexibility. You obviously need to use a pinch hitter a lot more often in the National League, but an extra position player could also be useful as a late-game defensive sub or you might need a utility guy in case of a double switch. If you don't have a long man out of the bullpen for a couple days, so be it.
If teams were allowed to expand their roster to 26 for interleague play only, it would save teams from having to make those sort of decisions. An NL team wants to add a DH? Sure. Go ahead. An AL team wants to add that extra bat off the bench? By all means. And that way, teams would also be able to make these roster changes without dropping a relief pitcher, which is usually what they have to do. It could easily work the other way, too. You're facing a lefty-heavy lineup and want to add a left-handed reliever? Go for it. The only choice left to be made is add a pitcher or add a position player?
Of course, there would have to be certain restrictions to this rule. If you're calling somebody up, they get sent back down immediately. I'd also give teams the option of activating somebody off the DL to fill that 26th roster spot. Should they do that, they need to drop a like player. If you activate a pitcher, a different pitcher has to get sent down once the roster is reduced back to 25. Same thing with position players. If you add one, you drop one. Just like they do when there's an injury in the postseason.
I'm not saying this is a perfect idea or that there's necessarily a problem with leaving it at 25. Just throwing it out there. Although, I think it's something that could definitely have the potential to catch on. They've already done something similar with doubleheaders. It's more a consideration for bullpens and the fact that you'll need two starting pitchers, but teams are allowed to use a 26-man roster for doubleheaders now. Similar thought process here.
Year-round interleague play is going to take some getting used-to. For all involved. (I'm already on board.) But I think the option of using a 26th player for interleague games is an intriguing possibility that could help make that adjustment a little bit easier.
Monday, May 6, 2013
I Miss These Rivalries
As the Rangers and Capitals play their annual playoff series, the Knicks renew aquiantances with the Pacers. And if they win, they'll take on the Heat or the Bulls. Basically, we've got every classic Knicks rivalry from back when they were last good in the late 90s. While it's about that long since I've actually watched the Knicks or cared about the NBA, this Knicks-Pacers matchup still has me feeling nostalgic.
You've got your great rivalries like Yankees-Red Sox and Bears-Packers and Canadiens-Leafs that are great because of how frequently the teams meet. (That's something these BCS conferences don't get with their endless expansion, but I digress.) Then there are the great rivalries that exist exculsively because of the postseason. Your Celtics-Lakers. Your Yankees-Dodgers. For whatever reason, some of these rivalries have fallen by the wayside in recent years. Some of them were so long ago that you can't even envision the two teams having any animosity towards each other. But others...Well, I miss the others. Like these:
UConn vs. Tennessee: This game was always THE matchup in women's college basketball. It would be the only women's game that anyone would even care about and/or be nationally televised. They usually met for the National Championship, but there was usually at least one regular season matchup a year as well. But they haven't played since 2007, when a disagreement about UConn's recruitment of Maya Moore led to both schools making the decision to discontinue the series. They can still theoretically meet in the NCAA Tournament (UConn's beaten Tennessee in the Championship Game four times), but that hasn't happened either. You've gotta figure they're eventually going to play again. They're both too good not to cross paths in the Final Four one of these years. When they do, I guarantee it'll be like it never stopped. And women's college basketball will be better for it.
Mets vs. Cardinals: These two were in the same division from 1969 until the NL Central was formed in 1994. But the rivalry was at its height in the mid-80s. From 1985-88, the Mets and Cardinals alternated the division title every season, with the Mets finishing second the two times they didn't win (1985 and 1987). The Mets won 98 games and didn't make the playoffs in 1985, when the Cardinals lost the World Series in seven! They've had some memorable run-ins since (the 2006 NLCS, the 19-inning game a couple years ago), and they, of course, still play every year, but Mets-Cardinals hasn't quite been the same since they stopped playing in the same division.
Red Wings vs. Avalanche: Detroit and Colorado absolutely hated each other when they were both good in the late 90s. And that's part of what made it the best rivalry in hockey. Of course, one of the reasons why it was such a bitter rivlary is because they were both really, really good teams. In the seven seasons from 1996-2002 (when the Nordiques moved to Denver), they met in the playoffs five times, including three times in the Western Conference Finals. Colorado won the Cup in 1996 and 2001, while Detroit won back-to-back Cups in 1997-98 and another in 2002. Unfortunately, these regular playoff meetings are a thing of the past. With the Red Wings moving to the Eastern Conference next year, the only way they can face-off in the playoffs would be in the Finals. While that would be great, it wouldn't be the same.
Cowboys vs. 49ers: How good were those games between the Cowboys and 49ers in the early 90s? To call that the NFL at its absolute best seems like an understatement. They met in the NFC Championship Game three years in a row when the NFC was still the dominant conference. The Cowboys won the first two and the 49ers won in 1994 before blowing out the Bills (twice) and Chargers, respectively, in the Super Bowl. The Packers ruined it by beating San Francisco in the Divisonal Playoffs in 1995, and Dallas-San Francisco lost its luster when both teams began to struggle. But the 49ers were in the Super Bowl last season and Dallas is always in the mix. If the Cowboys can return to prominence and the 49ers can stay at the top, this one could be reborn.
Bulls vs. Pistons: Before Jordan's Bulls were the thorn in the side of Ewing's Knicks, the Pistons were the thorn in Jordan's side. (I'm sure the vitriol between the Red Wings and Blackhawks probably came into play, too.) Four years in a row they met in the playoffs. Three years in a row Detroit won, en route to back-to-back championships in 1989 and 1990. The Bulls finally broke through in 1991, and we all know what happened from there. Sure, the Bulls and Pistons are in the same division and, as such, play regularly, but I have no idea if the rivalry is anywhere near as intense now as it was then. They haven't really been good at the same time since. I'd love to see it if they were.
Raiders vs. Steelers: This could really be Raiders vs. Fill-in-the-blank. It's been so long that the Raiders have been relevant that it seems like forever since they've actually had a rivalry with anybody other than the Broncos, Chiefs and Chargers. I picked the Steelers because of how intense those games in the 70s were. (And the Dolphins could easily be included here, too.) Had I been alive in the 1970s and experienced it, I'm sure I would absolutely hate one of these two teams. Mainly, I just want the Raiders to be relevant again. They're one of the NFL's cornerstone franchises, yet they've been a laughingstock for 10 years.
Patriots vs. Colts: Sure, they're going to play this season. But everybody already knows it's not going to be the same. This rivalry died the moment Peyton hurt his neck (remember the Patriots-Colts game getting flexed OUT of Sunday Night two years ago?), and the funeral was his trade to Denver. Patriots-Broncos is the hot rivalry now. This rivalry was never really Patriots vs. Colts. It was Manning vs. Brady. And it was glorious. Since they both always won the division, it was always twice a year that they'd play. The Patriots always won. Then the Colts always won. But the game was great pretty much every single time. The Colts-Patriots rivalry will always be special because it was two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks in the peak of their prime, with great teams around them, in all-out wars in games that were usually significant. As good as Andrew Luck might become, it's never going to be the same.
Kansas vs. Missouri/Texas vs. Texas A&M/Nebraska vs. Colorado/UConn vs. Syracuse: Chalk these up as casualties of the ever-revolving conference carousel. Nebraska-Colorado was the first to go, and Nebraska-Oklahoma suffered the same fate (who else is waiting for that Nebraska-Colorado Rose Bowl?). Rivalry lost at the cost of the almighty dollar. But that's nothing compared to Texas-Texas A&M. As I've made well known in the past, I'm not a fan of Texas A&M. I blame them for this neverending cycle. 'Cause they're the ones who started it going again. Texas A&M doesn't like it that Texas has the Longhorn Network and decided they didn't want to be in the same conference as Texas. Texas's response? "Bye. Have fun explaining to your alums why we don't play each other anymore--in anything." Ditto for Kansas-Mizzou, and that one went back a century. The final chapter of UConn-Syracuse played out a few months ago, and that's a loss for all of college basketball. Syracuse leaving was the Big East's deathblow, and UConn is the biggest loser in that deal. Of course, they're trying to get into the ACC, themselves, so this rivalry isn't quite dead yet, but the games in Madison Square Garden are no more. Likewise, Syracuse-Clemson doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Forgive me for not getting excited about UConn-SMU, either.
You've got your great rivalries like Yankees-Red Sox and Bears-Packers and Canadiens-Leafs that are great because of how frequently the teams meet. (That's something these BCS conferences don't get with their endless expansion, but I digress.) Then there are the great rivalries that exist exculsively because of the postseason. Your Celtics-Lakers. Your Yankees-Dodgers. For whatever reason, some of these rivalries have fallen by the wayside in recent years. Some of them were so long ago that you can't even envision the two teams having any animosity towards each other. But others...Well, I miss the others. Like these:
UConn vs. Tennessee: This game was always THE matchup in women's college basketball. It would be the only women's game that anyone would even care about and/or be nationally televised. They usually met for the National Championship, but there was usually at least one regular season matchup a year as well. But they haven't played since 2007, when a disagreement about UConn's recruitment of Maya Moore led to both schools making the decision to discontinue the series. They can still theoretically meet in the NCAA Tournament (UConn's beaten Tennessee in the Championship Game four times), but that hasn't happened either. You've gotta figure they're eventually going to play again. They're both too good not to cross paths in the Final Four one of these years. When they do, I guarantee it'll be like it never stopped. And women's college basketball will be better for it.
Mets vs. Cardinals: These two were in the same division from 1969 until the NL Central was formed in 1994. But the rivalry was at its height in the mid-80s. From 1985-88, the Mets and Cardinals alternated the division title every season, with the Mets finishing second the two times they didn't win (1985 and 1987). The Mets won 98 games and didn't make the playoffs in 1985, when the Cardinals lost the World Series in seven! They've had some memorable run-ins since (the 2006 NLCS, the 19-inning game a couple years ago), and they, of course, still play every year, but Mets-Cardinals hasn't quite been the same since they stopped playing in the same division.
Red Wings vs. Avalanche: Detroit and Colorado absolutely hated each other when they were both good in the late 90s. And that's part of what made it the best rivalry in hockey. Of course, one of the reasons why it was such a bitter rivlary is because they were both really, really good teams. In the seven seasons from 1996-2002 (when the Nordiques moved to Denver), they met in the playoffs five times, including three times in the Western Conference Finals. Colorado won the Cup in 1996 and 2001, while Detroit won back-to-back Cups in 1997-98 and another in 2002. Unfortunately, these regular playoff meetings are a thing of the past. With the Red Wings moving to the Eastern Conference next year, the only way they can face-off in the playoffs would be in the Finals. While that would be great, it wouldn't be the same.
Cowboys vs. 49ers: How good were those games between the Cowboys and 49ers in the early 90s? To call that the NFL at its absolute best seems like an understatement. They met in the NFC Championship Game three years in a row when the NFC was still the dominant conference. The Cowboys won the first two and the 49ers won in 1994 before blowing out the Bills (twice) and Chargers, respectively, in the Super Bowl. The Packers ruined it by beating San Francisco in the Divisonal Playoffs in 1995, and Dallas-San Francisco lost its luster when both teams began to struggle. But the 49ers were in the Super Bowl last season and Dallas is always in the mix. If the Cowboys can return to prominence and the 49ers can stay at the top, this one could be reborn.
Bulls vs. Pistons: Before Jordan's Bulls were the thorn in the side of Ewing's Knicks, the Pistons were the thorn in Jordan's side. (I'm sure the vitriol between the Red Wings and Blackhawks probably came into play, too.) Four years in a row they met in the playoffs. Three years in a row Detroit won, en route to back-to-back championships in 1989 and 1990. The Bulls finally broke through in 1991, and we all know what happened from there. Sure, the Bulls and Pistons are in the same division and, as such, play regularly, but I have no idea if the rivalry is anywhere near as intense now as it was then. They haven't really been good at the same time since. I'd love to see it if they were.
Raiders vs. Steelers: This could really be Raiders vs. Fill-in-the-blank. It's been so long that the Raiders have been relevant that it seems like forever since they've actually had a rivalry with anybody other than the Broncos, Chiefs and Chargers. I picked the Steelers because of how intense those games in the 70s were. (And the Dolphins could easily be included here, too.) Had I been alive in the 1970s and experienced it, I'm sure I would absolutely hate one of these two teams. Mainly, I just want the Raiders to be relevant again. They're one of the NFL's cornerstone franchises, yet they've been a laughingstock for 10 years.
Patriots vs. Colts: Sure, they're going to play this season. But everybody already knows it's not going to be the same. This rivalry died the moment Peyton hurt his neck (remember the Patriots-Colts game getting flexed OUT of Sunday Night two years ago?), and the funeral was his trade to Denver. Patriots-Broncos is the hot rivalry now. This rivalry was never really Patriots vs. Colts. It was Manning vs. Brady. And it was glorious. Since they both always won the division, it was always twice a year that they'd play. The Patriots always won. Then the Colts always won. But the game was great pretty much every single time. The Colts-Patriots rivalry will always be special because it was two future Hall of Fame quarterbacks in the peak of their prime, with great teams around them, in all-out wars in games that were usually significant. As good as Andrew Luck might become, it's never going to be the same.
Kansas vs. Missouri/Texas vs. Texas A&M/Nebraska vs. Colorado/UConn vs. Syracuse: Chalk these up as casualties of the ever-revolving conference carousel. Nebraska-Colorado was the first to go, and Nebraska-Oklahoma suffered the same fate (who else is waiting for that Nebraska-Colorado Rose Bowl?). Rivalry lost at the cost of the almighty dollar. But that's nothing compared to Texas-Texas A&M. As I've made well known in the past, I'm not a fan of Texas A&M. I blame them for this neverending cycle. 'Cause they're the ones who started it going again. Texas A&M doesn't like it that Texas has the Longhorn Network and decided they didn't want to be in the same conference as Texas. Texas's response? "Bye. Have fun explaining to your alums why we don't play each other anymore--in anything." Ditto for Kansas-Mizzou, and that one went back a century. The final chapter of UConn-Syracuse played out a few months ago, and that's a loss for all of college basketball. Syracuse leaving was the Big East's deathblow, and UConn is the biggest loser in that deal. Of course, they're trying to get into the ACC, themselves, so this rivalry isn't quite dead yet, but the games in Madison Square Garden are no more. Likewise, Syracuse-Clemson doesn't quite have the same ring to it. Forgive me for not getting excited about UConn-SMU, either.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
