Stop me if you've heard this before. The Cavs and Warriors are playing each other in the NBA Finals...for the fourth straight year! Yet the NBA and ESPN (which is basically to the NBA what Fox News is to the Trump Administration) want people to believe this is a good thing. The reality is that this once again proves that the idea of parity in the NBA is an absolute joke...a joke that stopped being funny a while ago.
I always say, but more in a joking manner, that it's an NBA rule LeBron James must be in the Finals. But I'm becoming less and less convinced that it isn't actually a rule. Especially with the way everything seems preordained for the Cavs-Warriors Finals. They were both on the road for Game 7 of the conference finals. Didn't matter. They still got every call. Yet you have people acting all surprised that they both won and saying that this is "another example of their greatness."
(Disclaimer: I haven't voluntarily watched an NBA game in years, and on Monday night, I was watching the hockey game. My take is based on the opinions expressed by others, so take it for what you will.)
Since this Cavs-Warriors monopoly started, seven different teams have played in the Stanley Cup Final, seven have played in the World Series, and six have made the Super Bowl. The NFL and Major League Baseball have both had four different champions, and the NHL will have its third this season.
So, even though it seems like the Patriots are in the Super Bowl every year, their NFC opponent at least changes. That's not remotely close to the case in the NBA. Ever since they let LeBron make his own team in Miami, the Eastern Conference has been his exclusive domain. Can anyone even remember the last time another East team was allowed to be in the Finals, and what team it was? I actually had to look it up to find out it was the Celtics in 2010.
It's not a good thing that 14 of the 15 teams in one conference know going into the season that the absolute best they can hope for is losing to Cleveland in the Conference Finals. It's even worse when 14 of the 15 teams in the other conference feel the same way. I don't care how you try to spin it. You shouldn't go into the season with 93 percent of the league thinking they have absolutely no chance (even if they're a "good" team)!
They might as well not even bother with the charade of 82 games and six weeks of playoffs just to inevitably get right back to the same place. And, for all the whining these guys do about travel and "needing rest," I'm sure the Cavs and Warriors wouldn't mind skipping right to the Finals.
LeBron James is the greatest player of his generation, and I'm not trying to start or get into a LeBron vs. Jordan debate. (It doesn't matter, and you're never going to convince somebody on the other side of the argument.) Likewise, Steph Curry is a future Hall of Famer. But the NBA and its PR people at ESPN aren't doing themselves any favors by forcing that same matchup down our throats over and over and over again. And the fact that they refuse to see that only exacerbates the problem.
This is a problem, it should be pointed out, of the NBA's own making. Ever since that ridiculous "Decision" TV special when LeBron announced that he was "taking his talents to Miami," we've known that the players run the league. They let LeBron make his own team in Miami and were unable to prevent the already-loaded Warriors from adding Kevin Durant. This in a league with a salary cap, mind you!
Instead of taking measures to make sure the league remains competitive, the exact opposite has happened. And this is the result. The rich get richer and, even the "good" teams are unable to keep up. As much as I despise the tactic, can you really blame the 76ers for tanking a couple years ago? If you aren't gonna have a chance even if you do try, why bother?
NBA fans are going to watch the NBA no matter what. But they've done a terrible job of trying to draw in others. The "casual fan" tuned out long ago. Why? Because it's become boring and predictable. Ho-hum. Another Cavs-Warriors Finals. Big deal.
Of course, plenty of people have no issue with the NBA or their annual Cavs-Warriors Finals. And I'm sure the league and ABC will be happy with the TV ratings, especially in Cleveland and the Bay Area. To those of you who'll be watching, I hope you enjoy. And, who knows? Maybe the games will actually be competitive. After all, the professional wrestling portion of the season is over. Now they can throw out the script.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Monday, May 28, 2018
A Stanley Cup KnightCap
As the NBA rolls towards yet another Cavs-Warriors finals (raise your hand if you're shocked by that) and I engage in a lively Facebook debate about the stupidity of having Game 7 and Game 1 on the same night for no reason, we prepare for some new blood to battle it out for the Stanley Cup. Somebody's name is being engraved on the Cup for the first time, as Washington and Vegas square off in a Final series nobody saw coming (at the start of the playoffs, let alone the start of the season).
Neither one of these teams has won a Stanley Cup Final game, let alone a series. The Capitals were swept by the Red Wings 21 years ago in their only previous trip, and we all know about all the history the Golden Knights have been rewriting during their remarkable inaugural season. Vegas is just the second team in NHL history to play for the Cup in its first year of existence. Although, that comes with a big asterisk because the 1968 Blues went as an expansion team in the year the NHL doubled in size from six teams to 12 and put all of the expansion clubs in the same conference, guaranteeing one had to make the Final. What Vegas has done is truly unprecedented.
Speaking of the Golden Knights, am I the only one who feels a certain poetic justice in the fact that Marc-Andre Fleury is back in the Final while the Penguins are not? He was skating around the ice with the Cup after Game 6 in Nashville last season knowing his time in Pittsburgh was done, and knowing that he was headed to Las Vegas. Well, that sure worked out for him, didn't it? I highly doubt he expected to be back this year, though.
Fleury has absolutely been the difference for Vegas in the playoffs thus far. The Knights have leaned on him not just for his incredible play, but because he was really the only one on the team with any playoff experience. That's especially true now. This is uncharted territory for pretty much everyone else (on both teams). Fleury's been here four times and won three Cups. That alone could prove to be huge.
Meanwhile, the Capitals have got to be thinking, "How do we get away from this guy!?" They finally got by the Penguins, only to have to deal with Fleury in the Final. The pressure's also squarely on the Capitals. Ovechkin finally has his chance to play for the Cup. They don't know when or if he'll get another one. Vegas has been playing with house money all season. What have they got to lose? Washington played free and loose against Tampa. But now the focus shifts back to Ovechkin and his Stanley Cup opportunity.
One thing the Capitals have going for them, though, is how well they've played on the road this postseason. They're 8-2 on the road and clinched all three series away from DC. They obviously need at least one road win if they want to hoist the Cup, but the Knights are 6-1 at home in Vegas, so something's gotta give.
Let's not forget this fact, either. The Capitals trailed in all three series. They were down 0-2 against Columbus and won four straight. They lost Game 1 against Pittsburgh and won four of the next five. They trailed Tampa Bay 3-2, then Braden Holtby stopped allowing goals entirely and they posted shutouts in Games 6 and 7 to advance to the Final. So, even if they get down, Washington has shown an ability to come back. As a result, don't expect Vegas to steamroll the way they did in the first three rounds.
The Knights obviously have the rest factor squarely on their side. In baseball, you sometimes wonder if a team has had too much rest if there's a long gap between series in the postseason. Well, Vegas has had a long break between every series, and it hasn't made a bit of difference. Although, with the exception of the three games in Winnipeg, they've spent pretty much the entire postseason in the Pacific time zone. We'll see if the increased travel and playing on the East Coast has any sort of an impact.
Both goalies have obviously been outstanding. But it seems unlikely both of these high-powered offenses will be held in check for the duration of a seven-game series. Ovechkin and Marchessault are the marquee offensive guys, but they're both deep and full of scorers. That's why I think getting an early lead is going to be important. Because they've both got the firepower to add on. Likewise, they've both got the ability to come back, so the early lead will give them the chance to dictate the pace.
Ultimately, though, in a series where a grand total of three guys (two of whom played for Pittsburgh) have Final experience, that's the ultimate wild card. Fleury being one of those guys gives Vegas a slight edge. He's the most important player in this series. Because as good as the Golden Knights have been, they wouldn't be here if not for their goaltender. Does he have four more wins in him?
I have a feeling that Alex Ovechkin is going to do something special, too. It's much more difficult for a skater to will his team to win than a goalie, but Ovechkin is going to do everything he can to do just that. This is his time to shine. He knows there's that one gaping hole in his resume, and this is his chance to do something about it.
You can really make a pretty good argument either way. This Capitals team really isn't much different than the one that won back-to-back President's Trophies. Now they've finally converted that regular season success into a long postseason run. And it definitely seems like they have more left in them.
But it also feels like the Golden Knights' incredible story has one last chapter to be written. Everything they've done this season has defied logic. Why not defy logic some more? All of the pieces have fallen into place for Vegas so far. It sounded crazy at the beginning of the season, and it still sounds crazy now for a different reason, but I'm picking the Vegas Golden Knights to win the Stanley Cup in six games. It seems like it's the only way for the most remarkable inaugural season for any expansion team ever to end.
Neither one of these teams has won a Stanley Cup Final game, let alone a series. The Capitals were swept by the Red Wings 21 years ago in their only previous trip, and we all know about all the history the Golden Knights have been rewriting during their remarkable inaugural season. Vegas is just the second team in NHL history to play for the Cup in its first year of existence. Although, that comes with a big asterisk because the 1968 Blues went as an expansion team in the year the NHL doubled in size from six teams to 12 and put all of the expansion clubs in the same conference, guaranteeing one had to make the Final. What Vegas has done is truly unprecedented.
Speaking of the Golden Knights, am I the only one who feels a certain poetic justice in the fact that Marc-Andre Fleury is back in the Final while the Penguins are not? He was skating around the ice with the Cup after Game 6 in Nashville last season knowing his time in Pittsburgh was done, and knowing that he was headed to Las Vegas. Well, that sure worked out for him, didn't it? I highly doubt he expected to be back this year, though.
Fleury has absolutely been the difference for Vegas in the playoffs thus far. The Knights have leaned on him not just for his incredible play, but because he was really the only one on the team with any playoff experience. That's especially true now. This is uncharted territory for pretty much everyone else (on both teams). Fleury's been here four times and won three Cups. That alone could prove to be huge.
Meanwhile, the Capitals have got to be thinking, "How do we get away from this guy!?" They finally got by the Penguins, only to have to deal with Fleury in the Final. The pressure's also squarely on the Capitals. Ovechkin finally has his chance to play for the Cup. They don't know when or if he'll get another one. Vegas has been playing with house money all season. What have they got to lose? Washington played free and loose against Tampa. But now the focus shifts back to Ovechkin and his Stanley Cup opportunity.
One thing the Capitals have going for them, though, is how well they've played on the road this postseason. They're 8-2 on the road and clinched all three series away from DC. They obviously need at least one road win if they want to hoist the Cup, but the Knights are 6-1 at home in Vegas, so something's gotta give.
Let's not forget this fact, either. The Capitals trailed in all three series. They were down 0-2 against Columbus and won four straight. They lost Game 1 against Pittsburgh and won four of the next five. They trailed Tampa Bay 3-2, then Braden Holtby stopped allowing goals entirely and they posted shutouts in Games 6 and 7 to advance to the Final. So, even if they get down, Washington has shown an ability to come back. As a result, don't expect Vegas to steamroll the way they did in the first three rounds.
The Knights obviously have the rest factor squarely on their side. In baseball, you sometimes wonder if a team has had too much rest if there's a long gap between series in the postseason. Well, Vegas has had a long break between every series, and it hasn't made a bit of difference. Although, with the exception of the three games in Winnipeg, they've spent pretty much the entire postseason in the Pacific time zone. We'll see if the increased travel and playing on the East Coast has any sort of an impact.
Both goalies have obviously been outstanding. But it seems unlikely both of these high-powered offenses will be held in check for the duration of a seven-game series. Ovechkin and Marchessault are the marquee offensive guys, but they're both deep and full of scorers. That's why I think getting an early lead is going to be important. Because they've both got the firepower to add on. Likewise, they've both got the ability to come back, so the early lead will give them the chance to dictate the pace.
Ultimately, though, in a series where a grand total of three guys (two of whom played for Pittsburgh) have Final experience, that's the ultimate wild card. Fleury being one of those guys gives Vegas a slight edge. He's the most important player in this series. Because as good as the Golden Knights have been, they wouldn't be here if not for their goaltender. Does he have four more wins in him?
I have a feeling that Alex Ovechkin is going to do something special, too. It's much more difficult for a skater to will his team to win than a goalie, but Ovechkin is going to do everything he can to do just that. This is his time to shine. He knows there's that one gaping hole in his resume, and this is his chance to do something about it.
You can really make a pretty good argument either way. This Capitals team really isn't much different than the one that won back-to-back President's Trophies. Now they've finally converted that regular season success into a long postseason run. And it definitely seems like they have more left in them.
But it also feels like the Golden Knights' incredible story has one last chapter to be written. Everything they've done this season has defied logic. Why not defy logic some more? All of the pieces have fallen into place for Vegas so far. It sounded crazy at the beginning of the season, and it still sounds crazy now for a different reason, but I'm picking the Vegas Golden Knights to win the Stanley Cup in six games. It seems like it's the only way for the most remarkable inaugural season for any expansion team ever to end.
Sunday, May 27, 2018
500 Miles Around the Brickyard
During Indy 500 qualifying last week, the announcers brought up a very interesting point. There were 35 cars entered, so two were going to be eliminated on Bump Day...and one of those drivers who got bumped was James Hinchcliffe. Hinch is one of the more popular and more marketable drivers on the IndyCar circuit, so it's certainly disappointing that he didn't make the field. Especially since he's currently fifth in the point standings, you just expected he'd be in the field.
Most IndyCar races feature only 24 drivers, yet there are 33 in the Indy 500. As a result (and because of the race's prestige), there are a number of owners that enter a car only for the Indy 500 and drivers that don't race full-time are hired just to race at Indy. Some of these owners simply don't have the finances to field a team fill-time, while some drivers are semi-retired and only want to run the one race at Indy (or a handful of races).
The argument that they were making, which makes a lot of sense, is that a full-time driver like Hinchcliffe shouldn't have to worry about getting bumped out of Indy while drivers with part-time rides are in the race instead. They suggested maybe using a system similar to what they use in NASCAR, where a certain number of drivers are automatically qualified based on the point standings.
It's not a terrible idea. This would give protection to the top drivers, who would still need to participate in qualifying, but would be guaranteed a spot in the race. And you're not locking in every spot, so the part-time drivers can still battle it out for the remaining places (20 drivers have participated in every race this season, so we'll use that as the benchmark and say they'd be fighting for 13 spots).
Of course, Bump Day only matters if there are enough cars entered (over the past few years, they had trouble just getting to 33), and it's one of the cooler qualifying events in sports. Indy's done it this way for many, many years, so don't expect them to be changing it simply because one guy didn't qualify. But I don't think guaranteeing the full-time drivers a spot in the field would take anything away from Bump Day, either.
That's a discussion for another day, though. As for the 33 drivers in the race itself, the story's really about two. Danica Patrick returns to Indy for the first time in seven years. It's also her farewell to the sport, as it's her final race before retiring. The other driver to watch is three-time champion Helio Castroneves. Helio posted the fastest time on the first day of qualifying, as he once again goes after his record-tying fourth victory. He came close last year, finishing second to Takuma Sato.
As fate would have it, Danica and Helio are starting right next to each other seventh and eighth on the grid. Indy native Ed Carpenter is on the pole for the third time (after starting second last year), while current series leader Josef Newgarden is on the inside of Row 2. Alex Rossi, the 2016 winner, has been installed as the favorite, even though he'll be starting 32nd in the 33-car field. Coincidentally, starting 33rd is Conor Daly, Rossi's teammate on the most recent season of The Amazing Race.
I think the action is going to come from the front, though. There's too much talent stacked in the first four rows, and I think that's where we'll find our winner.
Helio has looked great the whole time, and I think Newgarden's gonna do something special, too. Meanwhile, Tony Kanaan, my favorite driver, always has a good run at the Brickyard. He's the fastest car outside the Fast Nine, and he's in a really good spot on the inside of Row 4. If Kanaan is running at the end, he'll be a factor. Then there's Scott Dixon, who had a nasty crash after starting on the pole last year.
My pick, though, is a guy who's been one of the most consistent drivers on the IndyCar Series over the past several years, but has never put it together at the Brickyard. But...he won the Indy Grand Prix (held on the Indy road course) two weeks ago and will be starting on the outside of Row 1. Every time he's started in the front row, he's placed in the top 10. His best result at Indy was second in 2015. Three years later, I expect Will Power to do one better. I'm going with the Aussie to be sipping the milk in Victory Lane as the winner of the 102nd Indianapolis 500-Mile Race.
Also, it's worth noting that after 54 years, this is ABC's last hurrah at Indy. NBC bought the rights to the entire IndyCar Series, including the Indy 500, starting next year. It'll be weird for sure (kinda like how weird it was when NBC lost the rights to Wimbledon), and hopefully they give ABC a great race to finish off with. They deserve it.
Most IndyCar races feature only 24 drivers, yet there are 33 in the Indy 500. As a result (and because of the race's prestige), there are a number of owners that enter a car only for the Indy 500 and drivers that don't race full-time are hired just to race at Indy. Some of these owners simply don't have the finances to field a team fill-time, while some drivers are semi-retired and only want to run the one race at Indy (or a handful of races).
The argument that they were making, which makes a lot of sense, is that a full-time driver like Hinchcliffe shouldn't have to worry about getting bumped out of Indy while drivers with part-time rides are in the race instead. They suggested maybe using a system similar to what they use in NASCAR, where a certain number of drivers are automatically qualified based on the point standings.
It's not a terrible idea. This would give protection to the top drivers, who would still need to participate in qualifying, but would be guaranteed a spot in the race. And you're not locking in every spot, so the part-time drivers can still battle it out for the remaining places (20 drivers have participated in every race this season, so we'll use that as the benchmark and say they'd be fighting for 13 spots).
Of course, Bump Day only matters if there are enough cars entered (over the past few years, they had trouble just getting to 33), and it's one of the cooler qualifying events in sports. Indy's done it this way for many, many years, so don't expect them to be changing it simply because one guy didn't qualify. But I don't think guaranteeing the full-time drivers a spot in the field would take anything away from Bump Day, either.
That's a discussion for another day, though. As for the 33 drivers in the race itself, the story's really about two. Danica Patrick returns to Indy for the first time in seven years. It's also her farewell to the sport, as it's her final race before retiring. The other driver to watch is three-time champion Helio Castroneves. Helio posted the fastest time on the first day of qualifying, as he once again goes after his record-tying fourth victory. He came close last year, finishing second to Takuma Sato.
As fate would have it, Danica and Helio are starting right next to each other seventh and eighth on the grid. Indy native Ed Carpenter is on the pole for the third time (after starting second last year), while current series leader Josef Newgarden is on the inside of Row 2. Alex Rossi, the 2016 winner, has been installed as the favorite, even though he'll be starting 32nd in the 33-car field. Coincidentally, starting 33rd is Conor Daly, Rossi's teammate on the most recent season of The Amazing Race.
I think the action is going to come from the front, though. There's too much talent stacked in the first four rows, and I think that's where we'll find our winner.
Helio has looked great the whole time, and I think Newgarden's gonna do something special, too. Meanwhile, Tony Kanaan, my favorite driver, always has a good run at the Brickyard. He's the fastest car outside the Fast Nine, and he's in a really good spot on the inside of Row 4. If Kanaan is running at the end, he'll be a factor. Then there's Scott Dixon, who had a nasty crash after starting on the pole last year.
My pick, though, is a guy who's been one of the most consistent drivers on the IndyCar Series over the past several years, but has never put it together at the Brickyard. But...he won the Indy Grand Prix (held on the Indy road course) two weeks ago and will be starting on the outside of Row 1. Every time he's started in the front row, he's placed in the top 10. His best result at Indy was second in 2015. Three years later, I expect Will Power to do one better. I'm going with the Aussie to be sipping the milk in Victory Lane as the winner of the 102nd Indianapolis 500-Mile Race.
Also, it's worth noting that after 54 years, this is ABC's last hurrah at Indy. NBC bought the rights to the entire IndyCar Series, including the Indy 500, starting next year. It'll be weird for sure (kinda like how weird it was when NBC lost the rights to Wimbledon), and hopefully they give ABC a great race to finish off with. They deserve it.
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Roland Garros 2018
At first glance, this year's French Open draws look really strange. Rafael Nadal is the No. 1 seed on the men's side, which isn't that odd, but beyond that, these draws don't come anywhere near what you'd expect to see.
Novak Djokovic and Stan Wawrinka, who've both missed significant time over the past year due to injury, are seeded 20th and 23rd. Last year, Djokovic was No. 2 and Wawrinka was No. 3. In fact, Djokovic is seeded lower than second at Roland Garros for the first time since 2010 (when he was seeded third). Meanwhile, Roger Federer's sitting out the French Open for the third straight year and Andy Murray is still injured. As a result, the top seeds behind Nadal are No. 2 Alexander Zverev, No. 3 Marin Cilic and No. 4 Grigor Dimitrov. Like I said, it's weird.
The big story on the women's side is Serena Williams making her return to Grand Slam tennis for the first time since giving birth to her daughter. Although, the fact that she wasn't given a seed was a source of discussion throughout the week. I don't see why people are trying to make a controversy out of that, though. (Even Ivanka Trump felt the need to chime in.)
She has a protected ranking, which she used to enter the tournament. But a protected ranking is only used for entry. The seeds are based on the current world rankings. And Serena's current ranking is No. 453. Is she one of the 32 best players in the world? Absolutely. But that's not the point. Tournament organizers were not required to seed her and, in fact, they followed the rules exactly as they're written (Serena wasn't seeded at either of her first two tournaments this year, either).
Some other players have advocated on her behalf and have said they'd like to see that rule changed. It seems likely that it will, but it can't be put into effect until next year at the earliest (and this will be a moot point by then). And, let's face it, the organizers were in a no-win situation. Because if they had seeded her, plenty of people would've considered it special treatment and been asking why they didn't follow the rankings like they're supposed to.
Also, let's keep in mind that Serena is just 2-2 this year. If you were to seed her, what seed would it be? Because No. 1 or 2 certainly wouldn't be warranted. So, as you can tell, I'm OK with Serena being unseeded. Some people might not like it (and some top players likely wanted her seeded just to avoid the possibility of playing her early), but I think it was the right decision.
When she's at the top of her game (which I don't think she is right now), she's capable of beating anybody on any given day. Which the other players all know and terrifies them. And if she's fit enough to win seven matches, it really doesn't matter whether she's seeded or not.
Anyway, the top women's players caught a bit of a break. Because they all avoided Serena early. Her round of 16 match could be against Maria Sharapova (talk about intrigue), then No. 3 Garbine Muguruza, who beat her in the 2016 final, awaits in the quarterfinals. So, all in all, Serena ended up with a pretty good draw for an unseeded player. And she's actually set up for a pretty good run, provided she's fit enough (since she and Venus are playing doubles, too, which will either help her regain her fitness or wear her out completely).
Muguruza is the best clay court player in the world, so I'm installing her as my favorite. I've got her losing in the final to Elina Svitolina, the No. 4 seed, though. Like Svitolina, No. 1 Simona Halep has never won a Grand Slam, and, like Svitolina, this is her best chance to break that streak. You can't say that anymore about Caroline Wozniacki, who comes in as the No. 2 seed and no longer has that hanging over her head. We thought her breakthrough would be here a year ago. Instead Jelena Ostapenko won her first career WTA title at the French Open. The tournament can't be that crazy two years in a row, right?
On the men's side, there's very little point in pretending someone other than Nadal has a chance of winning. He's lost a grand total of two French Open matches in his career and is a 10-time champion, the record for any individual at any Grand Slam. So, who are we kidding? It'll be a shock if he doesn't make it 11. There's not even a name in his draw that I'd even say is a threat to beat him.
Nadal and Juan Martin Del Potro played a great semifinal at the US Open last year, and they're in line to play another one here. Djokovic and Wawrinka are both on the bottom half of the draw, but I have the same questions about them as I do about Serena. If they're healthy and fit enough, either one could win the six matches necessary to lose to Nadal in the final.
Novak Djokovic and Stan Wawrinka, who've both missed significant time over the past year due to injury, are seeded 20th and 23rd. Last year, Djokovic was No. 2 and Wawrinka was No. 3. In fact, Djokovic is seeded lower than second at Roland Garros for the first time since 2010 (when he was seeded third). Meanwhile, Roger Federer's sitting out the French Open for the third straight year and Andy Murray is still injured. As a result, the top seeds behind Nadal are No. 2 Alexander Zverev, No. 3 Marin Cilic and No. 4 Grigor Dimitrov. Like I said, it's weird.
The big story on the women's side is Serena Williams making her return to Grand Slam tennis for the first time since giving birth to her daughter. Although, the fact that she wasn't given a seed was a source of discussion throughout the week. I don't see why people are trying to make a controversy out of that, though. (Even Ivanka Trump felt the need to chime in.)
She has a protected ranking, which she used to enter the tournament. But a protected ranking is only used for entry. The seeds are based on the current world rankings. And Serena's current ranking is No. 453. Is she one of the 32 best players in the world? Absolutely. But that's not the point. Tournament organizers were not required to seed her and, in fact, they followed the rules exactly as they're written (Serena wasn't seeded at either of her first two tournaments this year, either).
Some other players have advocated on her behalf and have said they'd like to see that rule changed. It seems likely that it will, but it can't be put into effect until next year at the earliest (and this will be a moot point by then). And, let's face it, the organizers were in a no-win situation. Because if they had seeded her, plenty of people would've considered it special treatment and been asking why they didn't follow the rankings like they're supposed to.
Also, let's keep in mind that Serena is just 2-2 this year. If you were to seed her, what seed would it be? Because No. 1 or 2 certainly wouldn't be warranted. So, as you can tell, I'm OK with Serena being unseeded. Some people might not like it (and some top players likely wanted her seeded just to avoid the possibility of playing her early), but I think it was the right decision.
When she's at the top of her game (which I don't think she is right now), she's capable of beating anybody on any given day. Which the other players all know and terrifies them. And if she's fit enough to win seven matches, it really doesn't matter whether she's seeded or not.
Anyway, the top women's players caught a bit of a break. Because they all avoided Serena early. Her round of 16 match could be against Maria Sharapova (talk about intrigue), then No. 3 Garbine Muguruza, who beat her in the 2016 final, awaits in the quarterfinals. So, all in all, Serena ended up with a pretty good draw for an unseeded player. And she's actually set up for a pretty good run, provided she's fit enough (since she and Venus are playing doubles, too, which will either help her regain her fitness or wear her out completely).
Muguruza is the best clay court player in the world, so I'm installing her as my favorite. I've got her losing in the final to Elina Svitolina, the No. 4 seed, though. Like Svitolina, No. 1 Simona Halep has never won a Grand Slam, and, like Svitolina, this is her best chance to break that streak. You can't say that anymore about Caroline Wozniacki, who comes in as the No. 2 seed and no longer has that hanging over her head. We thought her breakthrough would be here a year ago. Instead Jelena Ostapenko won her first career WTA title at the French Open. The tournament can't be that crazy two years in a row, right?
On the men's side, there's very little point in pretending someone other than Nadal has a chance of winning. He's lost a grand total of two French Open matches in his career and is a 10-time champion, the record for any individual at any Grand Slam. So, who are we kidding? It'll be a shock if he doesn't make it 11. There's not even a name in his draw that I'd even say is a threat to beat him.
Nadal and Juan Martin Del Potro played a great semifinal at the US Open last year, and they're in line to play another one here. Djokovic and Wawrinka are both on the bottom half of the draw, but I have the same questions about them as I do about Serena. If they're healthy and fit enough, either one could win the six matches necessary to lose to Nadal in the final.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Rays' Reliever Revolution
The Tampa Bay Rays made headlines during Spring Training when they announced that they'd be going with a four-man starting rotation this season. They've since taken it to a whole different level. Last week, reliever Sergio Romo started back-to-back games. Now, in their upcoming weekend series against the Orioles, all three games will be started by relievers, with Romo pitching the first and third games.
It's unorthodox to say the least, and its sure drawn its share of reaction--both positive and negative--from around baseball. When Romo made the consecutive starts against the Angels, it actually worked. He pitched a combined 2 1/3 innings, struck out six and didn't allow a hit over the two games. But it certainly feels gimmicky, and you wonder how well it would work on a team that's actually a contender.
One of the reasons the Rays can get away with this is precisely because they don't figure into the AL East mix. If they did, they'd likely be employing a more conventional approach with their pitching staff. Likewise, if they had any worthwhile starting pitching prospects, I doubt they'd be starting relievers instead of giving these young starters a chance. The fact that neither of those things is actually the case, however, lends itself to this unconventional bullpen usage.
At the start of the season, Tampa Bay really only had three legitimate starters in Chris Archer, Blake Snell and Jake Faria. Yonny Chirinos was their fourth starter in April before he ended up on the DL, and Faria has since joined him on the DL. So, this strategy has come about more from necessity than any sort of groundbreaking sabermetric thought process (although, former Rays manager Joe Maddon is the one to thank for the abundance of shifts in the modern game).
Although, if you look at the Rays' roster, it appears that this is also by choice. They have several other pitchers who've been starters in the past (some for Tampa Bay), but they'd rather do it this way instead. Matt Andriese, for example, was in the Rays' rotation until this year, and Vidal Nuno was mostly a starter until he was converted to a full-time reliever by Seattle last season. Lefty Anthony Banda, meanwhile, got the start in his Rays debut and is essentially their long man.
They could easily stretch out Andriese and Banda if they so chose. They'd just prefer to have a nine-man bullpen. Which sounds like a great plan come playoff time, but how sustainable is it in May? If you've got a reliever starting the game, he's gonna throw a maximum of what? Three innings? So, doing that three games in a row means that the Rays will be asking the rest of the bullpen to give them a minimum of 18 innings in the series. Which also puts additional pressure on Archer and Snell to go at least six, if not seven, in the other two games.
Speaking of Chris Archer, his name is one of the first to come up whenever people start discussing players who might be moved at the trade deadline. He'd be a logical fit on a lot of contenders who need a starting pitcher (the Diamondbacks, Braves and Cardinals all immediately come to mind as fits for Archer). Say he does get traded. Would they seriously move forward with Snell as the only bona fide starter on the pitching staff?
There's obviously been some injuries, too, that have contributed to their lack of depth in the rotation. And who's to say if they continue this experiment when and if they get Faria and Nathan Eovaldi (who hasn't pitched in two years) back from the DL.
But the fact that they don't have any Major League-ready starters in their Minor League system is ridiculous. That, frankly, is why they're in this situation in the first place. You'd think a team like Rays, especially, would have an abundance of Minor League talent. Especially since their thing is loading up on low-cost prospects when they trade off key players.
Starting pitching is the thing that you can never have enough of. (Do the Astros win the World Series last year if they don't get Justin Verlander?) Which is why it boggles my mind that the Rays literally don't have enough starters to fill out even a four-man rotation. And I'm not even talking about good starters. I'm talking about serviceable starters. There seriously isn't anybody on the Tampa Bay roster who can give you five innings every fifth day?
Of course, the craziest thing of all is that despite all of this, the Rays are just three games under .500 and in third place in the AL East (although, to be fair, they're 10 games behind the Yankees and 11 behind the Red Sox). And, as long as it's working, there's no reason for them to do anything differently. As a result, we're probably going to see Tampa Bay continue this NCAA midweek, non-conference bullpen game thing for a while. At least until Faria comes back.
Is this a trend that's going to catch on, though? That seems unlikely. Starting pitchers are a valuable commodity, both in terms of salary and what they mean to the organization. With starting pitching, less is more is definitely not the best long-term approach to take.
In fact, the opposite is true. You can never have too much starting pitching. Unless you're the Rays.
It's unorthodox to say the least, and its sure drawn its share of reaction--both positive and negative--from around baseball. When Romo made the consecutive starts against the Angels, it actually worked. He pitched a combined 2 1/3 innings, struck out six and didn't allow a hit over the two games. But it certainly feels gimmicky, and you wonder how well it would work on a team that's actually a contender.
One of the reasons the Rays can get away with this is precisely because they don't figure into the AL East mix. If they did, they'd likely be employing a more conventional approach with their pitching staff. Likewise, if they had any worthwhile starting pitching prospects, I doubt they'd be starting relievers instead of giving these young starters a chance. The fact that neither of those things is actually the case, however, lends itself to this unconventional bullpen usage.
At the start of the season, Tampa Bay really only had three legitimate starters in Chris Archer, Blake Snell and Jake Faria. Yonny Chirinos was their fourth starter in April before he ended up on the DL, and Faria has since joined him on the DL. So, this strategy has come about more from necessity than any sort of groundbreaking sabermetric thought process (although, former Rays manager Joe Maddon is the one to thank for the abundance of shifts in the modern game).
Although, if you look at the Rays' roster, it appears that this is also by choice. They have several other pitchers who've been starters in the past (some for Tampa Bay), but they'd rather do it this way instead. Matt Andriese, for example, was in the Rays' rotation until this year, and Vidal Nuno was mostly a starter until he was converted to a full-time reliever by Seattle last season. Lefty Anthony Banda, meanwhile, got the start in his Rays debut and is essentially their long man.
They could easily stretch out Andriese and Banda if they so chose. They'd just prefer to have a nine-man bullpen. Which sounds like a great plan come playoff time, but how sustainable is it in May? If you've got a reliever starting the game, he's gonna throw a maximum of what? Three innings? So, doing that three games in a row means that the Rays will be asking the rest of the bullpen to give them a minimum of 18 innings in the series. Which also puts additional pressure on Archer and Snell to go at least six, if not seven, in the other two games.
Speaking of Chris Archer, his name is one of the first to come up whenever people start discussing players who might be moved at the trade deadline. He'd be a logical fit on a lot of contenders who need a starting pitcher (the Diamondbacks, Braves and Cardinals all immediately come to mind as fits for Archer). Say he does get traded. Would they seriously move forward with Snell as the only bona fide starter on the pitching staff?
There's obviously been some injuries, too, that have contributed to their lack of depth in the rotation. And who's to say if they continue this experiment when and if they get Faria and Nathan Eovaldi (who hasn't pitched in two years) back from the DL.
But the fact that they don't have any Major League-ready starters in their Minor League system is ridiculous. That, frankly, is why they're in this situation in the first place. You'd think a team like Rays, especially, would have an abundance of Minor League talent. Especially since their thing is loading up on low-cost prospects when they trade off key players.
Starting pitching is the thing that you can never have enough of. (Do the Astros win the World Series last year if they don't get Justin Verlander?) Which is why it boggles my mind that the Rays literally don't have enough starters to fill out even a four-man rotation. And I'm not even talking about good starters. I'm talking about serviceable starters. There seriously isn't anybody on the Tampa Bay roster who can give you five innings every fifth day?
Of course, the craziest thing of all is that despite all of this, the Rays are just three games under .500 and in third place in the AL East (although, to be fair, they're 10 games behind the Yankees and 11 behind the Red Sox). And, as long as it's working, there's no reason for them to do anything differently. As a result, we're probably going to see Tampa Bay continue this NCAA midweek, non-conference bullpen game thing for a while. At least until Faria comes back.
Is this a trend that's going to catch on, though? That seems unlikely. Starting pitchers are a valuable commodity, both in terms of salary and what they mean to the organization. With starting pitching, less is more is definitely not the best long-term approach to take.
In fact, the opposite is true. You can never have too much starting pitching. Unless you're the Rays.
Monday, May 21, 2018
Still Chinese Taipei
There are a number of topics I could've chosen for today's post. We've got baseball season in full swing, and we've got an expansion team headed to the Stanley Cup Final, while the U.S. got bronze at the World Hockey Championships with a team that was significantly better than the Olympic team. I haven't forgotten about the court ruling about sports wagering or the proposed NCAA basketball changes (did you see the ACC wants to expand the Tournament to 72 teams?), either.
But my topic du jour has to do with one of my specialties--the Olympics. There's been plenty of Olympic news of late (mainly Russia remaining non-compliant on the anti-doping front). The IOC also made a decision to not change something that has been a certain way for nearly 40 years. They rejected a petition to change "Chinese Taipei" to "Taiwan."
The political status of Taiwan is long and complicated, which all stems from its relationship with mainland China. The short version is that after the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the government that had been overthrown by the Communists reestablished itself on the island of Taiwan. Taiwan's official name is "Republic of China," while China is the "People's Republic of China." They're both recognized internationally as sovereign nations.
Taiwan has competed under several different names at the Olympics in its history, but has used the compromise name "Chinese Taipei" since 1984. As a part of the agreement, they can't use their national flag or anthem, either, and a special Chinese Taipei Olympic flag was created.
"Chinese Taipei" has become Taiwan's de facto name in all international sports. They were dominant in the Little League World Series for a little while...and referred to as "Chinese Taiwan." Same thing at the World Baseball Classic, and it's their FIFA name, too.
Of course, if you were to look for "Chinese Taipei" on a map, you wouldn't find it. The country technically does not exist, which was kind of the point when they came up with the compromise name. But, even though the country's official designation is "Chinese Taipei," it's still commonly referred to as "Taiwan," and the athletes are "Taiwanese."
Because of this, and for some other reasons, I've long advocated for calling it Taiwan instead. I certainly don't understand the extent of China-Taiwan relations, but it's important to note that the international community recognizes them as separate entities. Taiwan is not considered a part of China like Hong Kong or Macau are. And I think that if the government headquartered in Taipei were to officially change its country's name to "Republic of Taiwan," it likely wouldn't meet too much opposition worldwide (although China still considers Taiwan a rebel province, so I'm not sure Beijing would agree, which would likely nip the whole thing in the bud anyway).
However, at its Executive Board meeting earlier this month, the IOC refused to consider a name change from "Chinese Taipei" to "Taiwan." It wasn't officially proposed, but there had been rumblings about a referendum seeking the change. Since it didn't come from the government or the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, though, the IOC can't act on anything, a stance that they reaffirmed in a letter to the CTOC. And, even if it had, considering IOC President Thomas Bach's opposition to such a move, it likely would have been rejected.
CK Wu, the IOC member from Chinese Taipei, took the news in stride. He said that when an athlete performs well, they'll proudly say that they're from Taiwan. However, since they signed the agreement in 1981, they had to respect the terms. And, he pointed out, it's much more important for Taiwanese athletes to be able to compete than worrying about what the country is called.
He's right. It's better to have "Chinese Taipei" there, even if they can't use their flag or anthem. Although, I'd love to see them work out a new agreement that lets them be known as "Taiwan." Because that would give them much more of an identity. And it would give the Taiwanese people a much bigger sense of national pride.
It's not China. Or Chinese Taipei (which isn't even a real thing). It's Taiwan. Hopefully, one day, we'll be allowed to call them that officially at an Olympics. Just not in Tokyo.
But my topic du jour has to do with one of my specialties--the Olympics. There's been plenty of Olympic news of late (mainly Russia remaining non-compliant on the anti-doping front). The IOC also made a decision to not change something that has been a certain way for nearly 40 years. They rejected a petition to change "Chinese Taipei" to "Taiwan."
The political status of Taiwan is long and complicated, which all stems from its relationship with mainland China. The short version is that after the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the government that had been overthrown by the Communists reestablished itself on the island of Taiwan. Taiwan's official name is "Republic of China," while China is the "People's Republic of China." They're both recognized internationally as sovereign nations.
Taiwan has competed under several different names at the Olympics in its history, but has used the compromise name "Chinese Taipei" since 1984. As a part of the agreement, they can't use their national flag or anthem, either, and a special Chinese Taipei Olympic flag was created.
"Chinese Taipei" has become Taiwan's de facto name in all international sports. They were dominant in the Little League World Series for a little while...and referred to as "Chinese Taiwan." Same thing at the World Baseball Classic, and it's their FIFA name, too.
Of course, if you were to look for "Chinese Taipei" on a map, you wouldn't find it. The country technically does not exist, which was kind of the point when they came up with the compromise name. But, even though the country's official designation is "Chinese Taipei," it's still commonly referred to as "Taiwan," and the athletes are "Taiwanese."
Because of this, and for some other reasons, I've long advocated for calling it Taiwan instead. I certainly don't understand the extent of China-Taiwan relations, but it's important to note that the international community recognizes them as separate entities. Taiwan is not considered a part of China like Hong Kong or Macau are. And I think that if the government headquartered in Taipei were to officially change its country's name to "Republic of Taiwan," it likely wouldn't meet too much opposition worldwide (although China still considers Taiwan a rebel province, so I'm not sure Beijing would agree, which would likely nip the whole thing in the bud anyway).
However, at its Executive Board meeting earlier this month, the IOC refused to consider a name change from "Chinese Taipei" to "Taiwan." It wasn't officially proposed, but there had been rumblings about a referendum seeking the change. Since it didn't come from the government or the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, though, the IOC can't act on anything, a stance that they reaffirmed in a letter to the CTOC. And, even if it had, considering IOC President Thomas Bach's opposition to such a move, it likely would have been rejected.
CK Wu, the IOC member from Chinese Taipei, took the news in stride. He said that when an athlete performs well, they'll proudly say that they're from Taiwan. However, since they signed the agreement in 1981, they had to respect the terms. And, he pointed out, it's much more important for Taiwanese athletes to be able to compete than worrying about what the country is called.
He's right. It's better to have "Chinese Taipei" there, even if they can't use their flag or anthem. Although, I'd love to see them work out a new agreement that lets them be known as "Taiwan." Because that would give them much more of an identity. And it would give the Taiwanese people a much bigger sense of national pride.
It's not China. Or Chinese Taipei (which isn't even a real thing). It's Taiwan. Hopefully, one day, we'll be allowed to call them that officially at an Olympics. Just not in Tokyo.
Friday, May 18, 2018
The Vlad Jr. Dilemma
Vladimir Guerrero may be wearing an Angels hat when his plaque is hung in Cooperstown later this summer, but he just as easily could've gone into the Hall of Fame representing the Expos. Which is one of the many reasons it was so cool when his Vlad Jr. hit a walk-off homer against the Cardinals in the Blue Jays' annual Spring Training "home" game in Montreal.
That was just the first sign that Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., has a chance to be just as big a star as his dad was. MLB.com has him as their second-ranked prospect in all of baseball, behind only the Braves' Ronald Acuna, who made his Major League debut earlier this month and likely won't be seen in a Minor League ballpark again except for a rehab assignment. Which means Vlad Jr. is now the highest-ranked prospect still in the Minors.
A lot of scouts think Vlad Jr.'s time in the Minors is limited, too. He's currently playing for Double-A New Hampshire and absolutely raking (.413, 7 HR, 41 RBI in 36 games). Clearly he seems ripe for a promotion. And there are those who'd like him to skip Triple-A altogether and make the move straight to Toronto. There's one small problem with that plan, though. His name is Josh Donaldson.
Donaldson isn't just the Face of the Franchise. He plays the same position as Guerrero. And, if you're thinking DHing one of them is an option, the Blue Jays already have a full-time DH in Kendrys Morales (who, granted, is hitting about .160). In other words, there isn't really a regular spot in the big league lineup for Vlad Jr., and he's not the type of guy you're calling up just to get him "Major League experience."
Sure, you could call him up to Triple-A, have him play shortstop in Buffalo, then promote him to the Majors later in the summer. But if the long-term plan is for him to be the Blue Jays' third baseman (Donaldson is a free agent after the season), would that serve any practical purpose? And would it actually serve to benefit him?
Keep in mind, Vlad Guerrero Jr. is only 19 years old! And he's never played above Double A! I'm not saying he isn't Big League ready, because it clearly looks like he is. But I don't think bypassing Triple A entirely and fast-tracking him right to the Majors is necessarily the right call, either.
Even if he is ready for the Majors, would playing a few months a Triple A really hurt? Probably not. And, besides, he might be tearing up Double A, but Triple A pitchers are better than Double A pitchers. Just like Major League pitchers are better than both. See how he handles the Triple A pitching first.
But, herein lies Toronto's problem. The Blue Jays see themselves as contenders this season, but they know the AL East is out of reach. Whoever doesn't win the East between the Yankees and Red Sox will end up hosting the Wild Card Game, which leaves one wild card spot up for grabs (unless the Angels run away with that). So, any roster moves they make for a playoff "run" would likely only set them up for a one-game crap shoot...on the road. Do you call Guerrero up and start his arbitration clock (another consideration) for a playoff experience that could last only one game, if it even happens at all.
If the Blue Jays want to make that push, though, they need to have their nine best hitters in the lineup night after night. And Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., is arguably one of the nine best hitters they've got. Although, again, where would they put him?
Of course, this could all end up being a non-issue anyway. Toronto is already eight games back in the AL East and 3.5 games behind the Angels for the second wild card (they also trail Seattle and Oakland). Yes, it's only mid-May. But those gaps have just as much potential of getting larger as they do of becoming more manageable.
And if they end up being sellers at the deadline, they could handle it either way. They could easily trade Donaldson, try to get something for him before he leaves as a free agent, and hand Guerrero the third base job. Or they could stand pat with the team they've got and not rush him along, knowing that they likely aren't going to make the playoffs anyway.
Either way, it does seem likely that we'll see Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., in the Major Leagues this season, either as a September call-up or earlier. My bet is on September. Once he gets to the Majors, though, it doesn't seem like he'll be going back down. In fact, I'm installing him as the early favorite for AL Rookie of the Year in 2019, when the Blue Jays' third base job will be all his.
That was just the first sign that Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., has a chance to be just as big a star as his dad was. MLB.com has him as their second-ranked prospect in all of baseball, behind only the Braves' Ronald Acuna, who made his Major League debut earlier this month and likely won't be seen in a Minor League ballpark again except for a rehab assignment. Which means Vlad Jr. is now the highest-ranked prospect still in the Minors.
A lot of scouts think Vlad Jr.'s time in the Minors is limited, too. He's currently playing for Double-A New Hampshire and absolutely raking (.413, 7 HR, 41 RBI in 36 games). Clearly he seems ripe for a promotion. And there are those who'd like him to skip Triple-A altogether and make the move straight to Toronto. There's one small problem with that plan, though. His name is Josh Donaldson.
Donaldson isn't just the Face of the Franchise. He plays the same position as Guerrero. And, if you're thinking DHing one of them is an option, the Blue Jays already have a full-time DH in Kendrys Morales (who, granted, is hitting about .160). In other words, there isn't really a regular spot in the big league lineup for Vlad Jr., and he's not the type of guy you're calling up just to get him "Major League experience."
Sure, you could call him up to Triple-A, have him play shortstop in Buffalo, then promote him to the Majors later in the summer. But if the long-term plan is for him to be the Blue Jays' third baseman (Donaldson is a free agent after the season), would that serve any practical purpose? And would it actually serve to benefit him?
Keep in mind, Vlad Guerrero Jr. is only 19 years old! And he's never played above Double A! I'm not saying he isn't Big League ready, because it clearly looks like he is. But I don't think bypassing Triple A entirely and fast-tracking him right to the Majors is necessarily the right call, either.
Even if he is ready for the Majors, would playing a few months a Triple A really hurt? Probably not. And, besides, he might be tearing up Double A, but Triple A pitchers are better than Double A pitchers. Just like Major League pitchers are better than both. See how he handles the Triple A pitching first.
But, herein lies Toronto's problem. The Blue Jays see themselves as contenders this season, but they know the AL East is out of reach. Whoever doesn't win the East between the Yankees and Red Sox will end up hosting the Wild Card Game, which leaves one wild card spot up for grabs (unless the Angels run away with that). So, any roster moves they make for a playoff "run" would likely only set them up for a one-game crap shoot...on the road. Do you call Guerrero up and start his arbitration clock (another consideration) for a playoff experience that could last only one game, if it even happens at all.
If the Blue Jays want to make that push, though, they need to have their nine best hitters in the lineup night after night. And Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., is arguably one of the nine best hitters they've got. Although, again, where would they put him?
Of course, this could all end up being a non-issue anyway. Toronto is already eight games back in the AL East and 3.5 games behind the Angels for the second wild card (they also trail Seattle and Oakland). Yes, it's only mid-May. But those gaps have just as much potential of getting larger as they do of becoming more manageable.
And if they end up being sellers at the deadline, they could handle it either way. They could easily trade Donaldson, try to get something for him before he leaves as a free agent, and hand Guerrero the third base job. Or they could stand pat with the team they've got and not rush him along, knowing that they likely aren't going to make the playoffs anyway.
Either way, it does seem likely that we'll see Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., in the Major Leagues this season, either as a September call-up or earlier. My bet is on September. Once he gets to the Majors, though, it doesn't seem like he'll be going back down. In fact, I'm installing him as the early favorite for AL Rookie of the Year in 2019, when the Blue Jays' third base job will be all his.
Wednesday, May 16, 2018
Pitchers Should Hit NINTH!
As interleague play kicks into high gear, we once again get our annual dose of the great pitcher hitting vs. DH debate. That's a pointless conversation. No one's going to change their opinion, and things aren't going to change one way or the other.
You know where I stand on the DH. That's not what I'm here to talk about. Rather, it's an element of the pitcher hitting that we're starting to see more and more (and not just pitchers wearing single-digit numbers, which is a huge pet peeve of mine). Managers are starting to bat the pitcher eighth with regularity. And it's a trend that I simply don't get.
Going back as far as anyone can remember, pitchers have traditionally batted ninth. Sure, if the Angels are playing an interleague road game and want to bat Ohtani cleanup (which they would if he was DHing), knck yourselves out. But there are a number of teams that put their pitcher in the 8-hole for some sort of strategic reason. Maybe it's because I'm an AL guy, but I don't know what that strategic reason is and/or see any benefit in doing it.
Over the past few seasons, we've seen a massive shift in baseball strategy. As sabermetrics has taken over the game, defensive shifts have become en vogue. There isn't a game where you don't see the second baseman in shallow right field and the third baseman left alone on left side of the infield every time there's a left-handed hitter at the plate (with mid-at bat position changes nearly as frequent).
It was around the same time that the pitcher batting eighth became a regular thing, as well. Joe Maddon began the whole trend in 2016, when he hit the pitcher eighth and Javy Baez ninth for pretty much all of April. Eventually, the Cubs lineup went back to normal. Only for other teams to start batting the pitcher eighth. Suddenly it wasn't a Joe Maddon thing. It was spreading across the entire National League!
That would be bad enough. But we're even seeing American League managers do it in interleague games now. With AL lineups, I can at least somewhat follow the thought process of wanting to leave your regular No. 9 hitter in his normal spot in front of the leadoff guy. But, really, I think this is more about trying to be cute and overmanaging as a result.
Take the Yankees-Nationals game last night. Aaron Boone took a page out of the manual Joe Girardi left in the office and hit Masahiro Tanaka in the eight-spot. And, of course, they had runners on second and third with nobody out when his spot came up for the first time. Which gave Washington an easy out in an RBI situation, and the Nationals ended up getting out of the inning without allowing a run. Now, I'm not saying Gleyber Torres gets a hit there. But your chances of scoring are significantly better with a non-pitcher at the plate. Which would've been the case had Boone gone with a conventional lineup.
There are plenty of scenarios just like that one where managers ended up screwing themselves by putting the pitcher eighth in the lineup. The common rationale is that you're giving the hitters at the top of the lineup more chances to hit with runners on base if you flip-flop your eight and nine hitters. But this isn't the American League. Eight hitters in the National League are, for the most part, weaker than their AL counterparts. And, your pitcher's generally going to bat only twice (maybe three times) before you turn that spot over to pinch hitters, who are usually better than or at least comparable to whoever's hitting eighth.
I'm sure there's data that the pitcher batting eighth crowd uses to validate their position, but I want to look at it from the strategic standpoint on the other side. Let's assume for a second that they go 1-2-3 in both the first and second, then the No. 7 hitter leads off the third with a single. We all know what happens next. The pitcher bunts and they have a runner on second with one out. Next guy walks, so it's first and second with one out. Double play, inning over.
Now, if the pitcher's batting ninth, that No. 8 hitter isn't getting anything to hit, especially with a base open, so he still walks. Now the pitcher's bunt puts runners on second and third with one out and essentially takes the double play out of the equation. In other words, your odds of scoring increase dramatically.
This second scenario was one batter away from actually happening in that Yankees-Nationals game last night. The eight spot is far more likely to come up in an RBI situation than the nine spot. So, if you've got the pitcher batting eighth and he comes up with runners in scoring position in the fifth or sixth inning, you're gonna take him out even if he's pitching well so that you can send a pinch hitter up there instead. So, you're giving up your starter and relying on your bullpen for an extra inning because of it.
Even if the eight hitter makes the final out in that scenario, so what? You get your starter for another inning, then can send up a pinch hitter leading off the next inning (or even let him hit for himself leading off the inning). Sure, the same thing can happen with the nine hitter at the plate. I'm not saying it can't.
But, if you want your best hitters higher in the lineup so that they can get more at-bats, that logic would extend all the way down. Unless his name is Ohtani, your pitcher is likely going to be your weakest hitter. And that includes the "good-hitting" pitchers like Madison Bumgarner and Clayton Kershaw (what can't Kershaw do?). So why are you setting it up so that the pitcher's spot will come up more often?
Hopefully this is just a passing fad. But even if it isn't, I simply don't see the benefit to having the pitcher bat eighth instead of ninth. If there's any benefit at all, it's negligible. Either way, it's certainly not significant enough to spit in the face of decades of baseball tradition. Sometimes when you think you're smarter than the system, you end up outsmarting yourself.
You know where I stand on the DH. That's not what I'm here to talk about. Rather, it's an element of the pitcher hitting that we're starting to see more and more (and not just pitchers wearing single-digit numbers, which is a huge pet peeve of mine). Managers are starting to bat the pitcher eighth with regularity. And it's a trend that I simply don't get.
Going back as far as anyone can remember, pitchers have traditionally batted ninth. Sure, if the Angels are playing an interleague road game and want to bat Ohtani cleanup (which they would if he was DHing), knck yourselves out. But there are a number of teams that put their pitcher in the 8-hole for some sort of strategic reason. Maybe it's because I'm an AL guy, but I don't know what that strategic reason is and/or see any benefit in doing it.
Over the past few seasons, we've seen a massive shift in baseball strategy. As sabermetrics has taken over the game, defensive shifts have become en vogue. There isn't a game where you don't see the second baseman in shallow right field and the third baseman left alone on left side of the infield every time there's a left-handed hitter at the plate (with mid-at bat position changes nearly as frequent).
It was around the same time that the pitcher batting eighth became a regular thing, as well. Joe Maddon began the whole trend in 2016, when he hit the pitcher eighth and Javy Baez ninth for pretty much all of April. Eventually, the Cubs lineup went back to normal. Only for other teams to start batting the pitcher eighth. Suddenly it wasn't a Joe Maddon thing. It was spreading across the entire National League!
That would be bad enough. But we're even seeing American League managers do it in interleague games now. With AL lineups, I can at least somewhat follow the thought process of wanting to leave your regular No. 9 hitter in his normal spot in front of the leadoff guy. But, really, I think this is more about trying to be cute and overmanaging as a result.
Take the Yankees-Nationals game last night. Aaron Boone took a page out of the manual Joe Girardi left in the office and hit Masahiro Tanaka in the eight-spot. And, of course, they had runners on second and third with nobody out when his spot came up for the first time. Which gave Washington an easy out in an RBI situation, and the Nationals ended up getting out of the inning without allowing a run. Now, I'm not saying Gleyber Torres gets a hit there. But your chances of scoring are significantly better with a non-pitcher at the plate. Which would've been the case had Boone gone with a conventional lineup.
There are plenty of scenarios just like that one where managers ended up screwing themselves by putting the pitcher eighth in the lineup. The common rationale is that you're giving the hitters at the top of the lineup more chances to hit with runners on base if you flip-flop your eight and nine hitters. But this isn't the American League. Eight hitters in the National League are, for the most part, weaker than their AL counterparts. And, your pitcher's generally going to bat only twice (maybe three times) before you turn that spot over to pinch hitters, who are usually better than or at least comparable to whoever's hitting eighth.
I'm sure there's data that the pitcher batting eighth crowd uses to validate their position, but I want to look at it from the strategic standpoint on the other side. Let's assume for a second that they go 1-2-3 in both the first and second, then the No. 7 hitter leads off the third with a single. We all know what happens next. The pitcher bunts and they have a runner on second with one out. Next guy walks, so it's first and second with one out. Double play, inning over.
Now, if the pitcher's batting ninth, that No. 8 hitter isn't getting anything to hit, especially with a base open, so he still walks. Now the pitcher's bunt puts runners on second and third with one out and essentially takes the double play out of the equation. In other words, your odds of scoring increase dramatically.
This second scenario was one batter away from actually happening in that Yankees-Nationals game last night. The eight spot is far more likely to come up in an RBI situation than the nine spot. So, if you've got the pitcher batting eighth and he comes up with runners in scoring position in the fifth or sixth inning, you're gonna take him out even if he's pitching well so that you can send a pinch hitter up there instead. So, you're giving up your starter and relying on your bullpen for an extra inning because of it.
Even if the eight hitter makes the final out in that scenario, so what? You get your starter for another inning, then can send up a pinch hitter leading off the next inning (or even let him hit for himself leading off the inning). Sure, the same thing can happen with the nine hitter at the plate. I'm not saying it can't.
But, if you want your best hitters higher in the lineup so that they can get more at-bats, that logic would extend all the way down. Unless his name is Ohtani, your pitcher is likely going to be your weakest hitter. And that includes the "good-hitting" pitchers like Madison Bumgarner and Clayton Kershaw (what can't Kershaw do?). So why are you setting it up so that the pitcher's spot will come up more often?
Hopefully this is just a passing fad. But even if it isn't, I simply don't see the benefit to having the pitcher bat eighth instead of ninth. If there's any benefit at all, it's negligible. Either way, it's certainly not significant enough to spit in the face of decades of baseball tradition. Sometimes when you think you're smarter than the system, you end up outsmarting yourself.
Monday, May 14, 2018
Bring Back the Purple
The Arizona Diamondbacks are celebrating their 20th anniversary this season, which means throwback uniforms to their inaugural 1998 campaign! Incredibly, they're somehow on their third different uniform set. They ditched their unique purple and teal for a red and black combo that looked exactly like what the Astros were wearing at the time. Then a couple years ago, they updated it again and now have that weird snakeskin pattern and those ridiculous dark gray road jerseys.
I've always preferred their original set, which is why I'm so glad to see them back. In fact, I'd love to see them go back to the purple as their primary uniform. And they wouldn't be the first team to go back after a new look didn't quite go over the way it was intended. The Sabres, Islanders, Capitals and Penguins did just that in the NHL. So did both of New York's football teams. And the Chargers gave us an updated version of their beloved powder blues. We've seen plenty of other baseball teams turn a throwback into a revived primary look, too.
Then there's what the Blue Jays did. Toronto went through it's share of horrible uniform/logo decisions (anyone else remember the Black Jays?) before going back to a modernized version of their original logo. And their uniforms now rank among the best in the game. Same thing with the Orioles and their revived cartoon bird. Meanwhile, the Brewers have brought back their outstanding ball in glove logo, but haven't gone all the way by bringing their mid-80s uniforms back.
There are plenty of teams across the four major sports that would be served to go back to a retro logo/uniform set permanently, including the Diamondbacks.
Since I'm already on the topic, I'll stick with baseball. In fact, I'll stay in the NL West with the San Diego Padres. A lot of people would love to see them bring back the brown, which has always been kind of their trademark. The brown does live on as one of the Padres' throwbacks, but it's not the one I would restore. That would be the navy-and-orange look that they rocked when they won the pennant in 1998 (sadly, Greg Vaughn is the only person in this picture who's still alive).
While I'm on the subject, there's no more distinctive look for any baseball team than that of the Philadelphia Phillies in the 1980s. They wore them as a throwback for one game this season, but the maroon P with a baseball in the middle on a powder blue jersey is pure Phillies. It needs to come back today!
When they were founded, the Marlins were all in on the teal thing (it was the early 90s, after all). Eventually, they moved to black as their primary color and they actually looked pretty sharp. Then they changed their name from "Florida" to "Miami" and came up with like eight different combinations, none of which are better than their championship set from 2003, sported here by a rookie named Miguel Cabrera.
In the NFL, it's really only been in recent years where we've seen absolute uniform travesties. The Jaguars have liberated from those ridiculous two-toned helmets and gone back to a more sedated look. I'm not pushing for the revival of the NFL's two best-known throwback looks, either (that's, of course, Pat the Patriot and Buccaneer Bruce). I would like to see the Bucs' throw back a little, though. The logo on the helmets is way too big and what is that number font? Go back to what you wore when you won the Super Bowl 15 years ago.
And, this one seems highly unlikely, seeing as they've embraced their current look with their giant numbers, but I'd love to see the Bucs' 1976 expansion brothers, the Seahawks, go back to that monochrome blue look they rocked when they first switched from the AFC to the NFC.
If there's one team in the NFL that needs to ditch its current uniforms and revive a former look it's the Cleveland Browns. Maybe one of the reasons they're 1-31 over the past two seasons is because they look like a freakin' college team out there! Seriously, what's with the orange numbers on brown jerseys?! They've never had a logo, but they can at least bring the uniforms back to the classic look of their 1999 revival.
Plenty of NBA teams could use some help with their uniforms, too (actually, most NBA teams). None moreso than the Atlanta Hawks. They've gone through how many different uniform incarnations, each of which seems to be worse than the last? While it seemed somewhat garish at the time, their 1980s getup is probably the best, and it's also their classic look.
A lot of NBA teams have taken the same route as the Blue Jays and modernized a classic logo (the Warriors, the Pistons, the Jazz), so they're actually in pretty decent shape logo-wise. Although, that doesn't mean their aren't any other teams that could use a change. For example, I'd love to see the Nets drop their whole Brooklyn black thing. Nothing's worse than the Clippers, though. Were the uniforms they wore before their current ones really so bad?
Another team that owned purple at its inception was the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Then they dropped the "Mighty," changed their colors to orange and black, and the logo went from the duck-shaped goalie mask to a duck's foot. Their current look isn't horrible. It's not as good as the original, though.
Finally, we've got the Winnipeg Jets. Much like the Hornets needed permission from the Pelicans to use the name and colors, but had to adopt a new logo, the deal between the Jets and Coyotes is probably similar. How great would it be if Winnipeg was allowed to wear one of those jerseys we saw in the stands during the first two games of the Western Conference Final all the time?
I've always preferred their original set, which is why I'm so glad to see them back. In fact, I'd love to see them go back to the purple as their primary uniform. And they wouldn't be the first team to go back after a new look didn't quite go over the way it was intended. The Sabres, Islanders, Capitals and Penguins did just that in the NHL. So did both of New York's football teams. And the Chargers gave us an updated version of their beloved powder blues. We've seen plenty of other baseball teams turn a throwback into a revived primary look, too.
Then there's what the Blue Jays did. Toronto went through it's share of horrible uniform/logo decisions (anyone else remember the Black Jays?) before going back to a modernized version of their original logo. And their uniforms now rank among the best in the game. Same thing with the Orioles and their revived cartoon bird. Meanwhile, the Brewers have brought back their outstanding ball in glove logo, but haven't gone all the way by bringing their mid-80s uniforms back.
There are plenty of teams across the four major sports that would be served to go back to a retro logo/uniform set permanently, including the Diamondbacks.
Since I'm already on the topic, I'll stick with baseball. In fact, I'll stay in the NL West with the San Diego Padres. A lot of people would love to see them bring back the brown, which has always been kind of their trademark. The brown does live on as one of the Padres' throwbacks, but it's not the one I would restore. That would be the navy-and-orange look that they rocked when they won the pennant in 1998 (sadly, Greg Vaughn is the only person in this picture who's still alive).
While I'm on the subject, there's no more distinctive look for any baseball team than that of the Philadelphia Phillies in the 1980s. They wore them as a throwback for one game this season, but the maroon P with a baseball in the middle on a powder blue jersey is pure Phillies. It needs to come back today!
When they were founded, the Marlins were all in on the teal thing (it was the early 90s, after all). Eventually, they moved to black as their primary color and they actually looked pretty sharp. Then they changed their name from "Florida" to "Miami" and came up with like eight different combinations, none of which are better than their championship set from 2003, sported here by a rookie named Miguel Cabrera.
In the NFL, it's really only been in recent years where we've seen absolute uniform travesties. The Jaguars have liberated from those ridiculous two-toned helmets and gone back to a more sedated look. I'm not pushing for the revival of the NFL's two best-known throwback looks, either (that's, of course, Pat the Patriot and Buccaneer Bruce). I would like to see the Bucs' throw back a little, though. The logo on the helmets is way too big and what is that number font? Go back to what you wore when you won the Super Bowl 15 years ago.
And, this one seems highly unlikely, seeing as they've embraced their current look with their giant numbers, but I'd love to see the Bucs' 1976 expansion brothers, the Seahawks, go back to that monochrome blue look they rocked when they first switched from the AFC to the NFC.
If there's one team in the NFL that needs to ditch its current uniforms and revive a former look it's the Cleveland Browns. Maybe one of the reasons they're 1-31 over the past two seasons is because they look like a freakin' college team out there! Seriously, what's with the orange numbers on brown jerseys?! They've never had a logo, but they can at least bring the uniforms back to the classic look of their 1999 revival.
Plenty of NBA teams could use some help with their uniforms, too (actually, most NBA teams). None moreso than the Atlanta Hawks. They've gone through how many different uniform incarnations, each of which seems to be worse than the last? While it seemed somewhat garish at the time, their 1980s getup is probably the best, and it's also their classic look.
A lot of NBA teams have taken the same route as the Blue Jays and modernized a classic logo (the Warriors, the Pistons, the Jazz), so they're actually in pretty decent shape logo-wise. Although, that doesn't mean their aren't any other teams that could use a change. For example, I'd love to see the Nets drop their whole Brooklyn black thing. Nothing's worse than the Clippers, though. Were the uniforms they wore before their current ones really so bad?
Another team that owned purple at its inception was the Anaheim Mighty Ducks. Then they dropped the "Mighty," changed their colors to orange and black, and the logo went from the duck-shaped goalie mask to a duck's foot. Their current look isn't horrible. It's not as good as the original, though.
Finally, we've got the Winnipeg Jets. Much like the Hornets needed permission from the Pelicans to use the name and colors, but had to adopt a new logo, the deal between the Jets and Coyotes is probably similar. How great would it be if Winnipeg was allowed to wear one of those jerseys we saw in the stands during the first two games of the Western Conference Final all the time?
Friday, May 11, 2018
The Southeast Division and the New Guys
As the NBA makes its inevitable march towards its league-mandated Cavs-Warriors Finals (seriously, why do they even bother with the regular season and first three rounds of the "playoffs"?), the last four teams standing in the Stanley Cup Playoffs are certainly not the ones you would've expected. They've won a combined one Stanley Cup between them, two have never even been to the conference finals, and one hadn't even played a game yet at this point last year. But, yeah, the NBA's more entertaining. Sure.
It was Atlanta's relocation to Winnipeg that prompted the NHL realignment five years ago. Prior to that, there were six divisions of five. Of those six divisions, the Southeast Division was generally considered to be the weakest. But here's the funny thing. It's the only one of the pre-realignment divisions still standing. None of this has anything to do with this season's playoffs, and Vegas wouldn't exist had they kept the six-division format, but I still find it kinda interesting that the Southeast Division maybe wasn't so bad after all.
Anyway, if the old Southeast Division was still a thing, Washington and Tampa Bay would surely be the class of it. The Lightning are the only one of the four remaining teams that's been remotely this far in the playoffs prior to this year. This is their third trip to at least the East Final in four seasons (and, when you consider that half the team is former Rangers, it's really four in five for them).
Washington, meanwhile, finally beat the Penguins and got Alex Ovechkin to his first East Final. The Caps haven't been this far in 20 years, and they're looking to play for the Cup for just the second time in their history. And, you know what? They've got a pretty good chance. One of the reasons I think they finally got by the Penguins is because no one thought they would. The pressure's off and they're playing looser as a result. And now they've really got nothing to lose. They're playing with house money.
Rangers South, however, definitely feels that pressure. The Lightning have been the top team in the East all season, and nothing that's happened in the first two rounds of the playoffs have given anybody a reason to think otherwise. Especially after missing the playoffs entirely last season, they're out to show who's boss in the Eastern Conference.
On paper, Tampa Bay should win this series. But, again, the Capitals didn't just knock off the two-time defending champs, they did so without two of their best players. If they get Backstrom back, their offense becomes that much more dynamic. And Holtby has been having a heck of a playoff year! I can see him stealing a game or two (speaking of stealing a game, how about that guy in the AHL making 94! saves in a five-overtime win).
I can easily see this series going seven games. Tampa Bay is better, but Washington just has that air about them. Over the past few seasons, we've seen the perennial playoff underachievers break through and make deep runs. I have a feeling that the Capitals will do that this year. I can't bring myself to pick them, though. Not with Game 7 in Tampa. Lightning in seven.
Out West, we've got the NHL's two newest teams, one of which is guaranteed to play for the Cup. Either Winnipeg will have a chance to break Canada's 25-year Cup drought or Vegas will cap the greatest inaugural season of any expansion team ever with one of the most unexpected Finals berths in sports history.
Winnipeg is damn good. When they lost Game 6 against the Predators at home, I thought they were done. Then they went and absolutely dominated Game 7 in Nashville. And now, the Jets have home ice advantage the rest of the way, which makes them even more dangerous. (Seriously, would you want to play in that White Out?)
The Jets are so much more than just that wacky Manitoba crowd, though. They're perhaps the most complete team remaining. I have no idea how anyone can stop Patrick Laine, and he's only part of the offensive equation. Meanwhile, on defense, they have Dustin Byfuglien and his playoff experience from his time in Chicago. And let's not forget how ridiculously awesome Connor Hellebuyck has been throughout the first two rounds of the playoffs.
Then there's Vegas. Frankly, I thought the Golden Knights' magical run was going to end against San Jose. I was wrong. Vegas dominated that series from the start, and Marc-Andre Fleury played like a three-time Stanley Cup champion. Speaking of teams that have nothing to lose, the Knights don't see themselves as an expansion team. They go into every game expecting to win. I think that's been part of the reason for their success.
But Winnipeg is the best team they've faced by far. I can easily see this coming down to a battle of the goalies, and it seems likely that both Hellebuyck and Fleury will each be responsible for at least one win in the series. They've both got those incredible home crowds, as well. We'll see how much of a factor that will be, if any.
In the unexpected battle of the NHL's two smallest markets, the little things will be the difference. I give Winnipeg the edge for two reasons, though. The Jets have felt the pressure this postseason. The Knights haven't. I also think Winnipeg is a little stronger defensively, and that'll be a key in determining the tempo of the games. Two slight edges that result in my picking Winnipeg. Jets in six.
It was Atlanta's relocation to Winnipeg that prompted the NHL realignment five years ago. Prior to that, there were six divisions of five. Of those six divisions, the Southeast Division was generally considered to be the weakest. But here's the funny thing. It's the only one of the pre-realignment divisions still standing. None of this has anything to do with this season's playoffs, and Vegas wouldn't exist had they kept the six-division format, but I still find it kinda interesting that the Southeast Division maybe wasn't so bad after all.
Anyway, if the old Southeast Division was still a thing, Washington and Tampa Bay would surely be the class of it. The Lightning are the only one of the four remaining teams that's been remotely this far in the playoffs prior to this year. This is their third trip to at least the East Final in four seasons (and, when you consider that half the team is former Rangers, it's really four in five for them).
Washington, meanwhile, finally beat the Penguins and got Alex Ovechkin to his first East Final. The Caps haven't been this far in 20 years, and they're looking to play for the Cup for just the second time in their history. And, you know what? They've got a pretty good chance. One of the reasons I think they finally got by the Penguins is because no one thought they would. The pressure's off and they're playing looser as a result. And now they've really got nothing to lose. They're playing with house money.
Rangers South, however, definitely feels that pressure. The Lightning have been the top team in the East all season, and nothing that's happened in the first two rounds of the playoffs have given anybody a reason to think otherwise. Especially after missing the playoffs entirely last season, they're out to show who's boss in the Eastern Conference.
On paper, Tampa Bay should win this series. But, again, the Capitals didn't just knock off the two-time defending champs, they did so without two of their best players. If they get Backstrom back, their offense becomes that much more dynamic. And Holtby has been having a heck of a playoff year! I can see him stealing a game or two (speaking of stealing a game, how about that guy in the AHL making 94! saves in a five-overtime win).
I can easily see this series going seven games. Tampa Bay is better, but Washington just has that air about them. Over the past few seasons, we've seen the perennial playoff underachievers break through and make deep runs. I have a feeling that the Capitals will do that this year. I can't bring myself to pick them, though. Not with Game 7 in Tampa. Lightning in seven.
Out West, we've got the NHL's two newest teams, one of which is guaranteed to play for the Cup. Either Winnipeg will have a chance to break Canada's 25-year Cup drought or Vegas will cap the greatest inaugural season of any expansion team ever with one of the most unexpected Finals berths in sports history.
Winnipeg is damn good. When they lost Game 6 against the Predators at home, I thought they were done. Then they went and absolutely dominated Game 7 in Nashville. And now, the Jets have home ice advantage the rest of the way, which makes them even more dangerous. (Seriously, would you want to play in that White Out?)
The Jets are so much more than just that wacky Manitoba crowd, though. They're perhaps the most complete team remaining. I have no idea how anyone can stop Patrick Laine, and he's only part of the offensive equation. Meanwhile, on defense, they have Dustin Byfuglien and his playoff experience from his time in Chicago. And let's not forget how ridiculously awesome Connor Hellebuyck has been throughout the first two rounds of the playoffs.
Then there's Vegas. Frankly, I thought the Golden Knights' magical run was going to end against San Jose. I was wrong. Vegas dominated that series from the start, and Marc-Andre Fleury played like a three-time Stanley Cup champion. Speaking of teams that have nothing to lose, the Knights don't see themselves as an expansion team. They go into every game expecting to win. I think that's been part of the reason for their success.
But Winnipeg is the best team they've faced by far. I can easily see this coming down to a battle of the goalies, and it seems likely that both Hellebuyck and Fleury will each be responsible for at least one win in the series. They've both got those incredible home crowds, as well. We'll see how much of a factor that will be, if any.
In the unexpected battle of the NHL's two smallest markets, the little things will be the difference. I give Winnipeg the edge for two reasons, though. The Jets have felt the pressure this postseason. The Knights haven't. I also think Winnipeg is a little stronger defensively, and that'll be a key in determining the tempo of the games. Two slight edges that result in my picking Winnipeg. Jets in six.
Wednesday, May 9, 2018
A Hopefully Not Hot Schedule
At last week's Diamond League season opener in Doha, they unveiled the schedule for the 2019 World Championships, which will also be held in the Qatari capital. When they announced Doha as the host of the 2019 Worlds, it led to some immediate questions/doubts/worries about the heat.
They solved one of those problems by moving the Championships from their typical mid-summer timetable to late September/early October. The event schedule answered some of those other questions, while also creating a whole slew of others.
Doha 2019 has been praised for coming up with an "innovative" and "fan-friendly" schedule. It's definitely innovative. And I'm sure the athletes will appreciate being kept out of the heat as much as possible (although it's evidently still ridiculously hot, even at night, in the Middle East in late September). The schedule of all-nighttime events will definitely affect some training schedules, though. Especially in the marathon.
Marathoners are used to getting up at the crack of dawn and racing in the early morning. In Doha, the marathons (as well as the race walks) will be at midnight. For fans and spectators, the views will be spectacular. But for the athletes, it's definitely going to throw them completely out of whack to be finishing the race around 2:30 am. Even if it is for the heat, it's still going to screw them up. Especially since all of the other marathons will stay on their early-morning schedule. And, presumably, so will the Tokyo Olympics, which, because of the late World Championships, are only 10 months later.
The other athletes who I think will be impacted the most by Doha's schedule are the multi-eventers. Decathletes and heptathletes typically spend two entire days at the track, starting in an empty stadium early in the morning session (generally as the first event), continuing all afternoon, and concluding at some point during the evening session. Then turning around and doing it all again the next day.
In Doha, however, the multi-event competitions will all be condensed into a period of about seven hours. The first events will be at 4:30, and the final event of each day will be around midnight. That's great for the recovery between days. But it also means the break between events will be significantly shorter. And they won't get a midday break between sessions like they normally do.
One of the things they did at the exceptional World Championships last summer in London was limit the number of morning sessions, which they think helped attendance (morning sessions, which generally include only preliminary heats, typically feature far more empty seats than the evening sessions of mainly semifinals and finals). Doha has taken that a step further, eliminating morning sessions completely and replacing them with what they're calling "split" evening sessions that start in the late afternoon and have a one-hour break before the finals at night.
Likely a concession to the heat, I doubt this will be a permanent change (I hope it won't be). There's no chance they won't have morning sessions at the Tokyo Olympics or the 2021 Worlds in Eugene for one simple reason. Morning sessions mean more opportunities to sell tickets. And, while Tokyo's heat will also pose a problem (although not to the same extent as Doha), the weather in Oregon for the 2014 World Juniors was beautiful (when it wasn't raining).
Personally, I'd like to see a morning session only on the the four days when they're necessary for the multi-events. And you can limit them to the weekends, too. You have the heptathlon on Saturday and Sunday of the first weekend and the decathlon on Friday and Saturday of the second weekend. You could do the marathons and walks then, too (the 50k walks are simultaneous, and if hold both 20k walks back-to-back on the same day, it'd work).
Anyway, I've got a feeling that this is partially TV-motivated, too. One of the reasons there were afternoon finals in Rio was because that's prime time in Europe. Just like there will likely be morning finals in Tokyo so they can be during prime time in the U.S. (another reason why there will almost certainly be morning sessions at the 2020 Olympics). The time difference to Doha and the times at which events were scheduled puts them during the late afternoon/early evening in Europe and the early afternoon in the U.S. In other words, the perfect time for TV. Even the midnight marathons will start at 4:00 Eastern in the U.S. and prime time in Europe.
There's one last significant change in the schedule that's worth mentioning. The meet will close with the World Championships debut of the mixed 4x400 relay. The IOC added this event to the Olympics for the Tokyo Games, so the IAAF is following suit by adding it to the World Championships. It could provide for an exciting finish to the meet.
As a result, the men's and women's 4x400s have been moved to the opening weekend. I like that change. However, it also means that, counting heats and finals, an athlete that does all three events (the individual and both relays) would potentially have to run seven 400s in 10 days (without even accounting for the possibility of them doing the 200, as well).
Even the countries that are deep enough to not run their top 400 runners until the finals of the relays would still be asking the likes of LaShawn Merritt and Allyson Felix to run five times over the course of the Championships. And, with the regular 4x4's now before the individual 400s, I wonder if they'll choose not to run one or both of the relays. And, if they choose to sit a relay out, which one? Because I doubt the IAAF or IOC wants the mixed 4x4 to get the U.S. or Jamaican or British "B" team (most countries don't have that option to begin with). But that might be exactly what they end up getting.
Hopefully that won't be the case, though. Hopefully these changes all work out for the better and the Doha Worlds are just as glorious as the London Worlds. Regardless, I think this new schedule is a one-and-done thing. Eugene 2021 may not go all the way back to the old schedule, but it likely won't feature midnight marathons, either. One thing seems certain, though. The mixed 4x400 relay is probably going to be the finale moving forward. At both the World Championships and Olympics.
They solved one of those problems by moving the Championships from their typical mid-summer timetable to late September/early October. The event schedule answered some of those other questions, while also creating a whole slew of others.
Doha 2019 has been praised for coming up with an "innovative" and "fan-friendly" schedule. It's definitely innovative. And I'm sure the athletes will appreciate being kept out of the heat as much as possible (although it's evidently still ridiculously hot, even at night, in the Middle East in late September). The schedule of all-nighttime events will definitely affect some training schedules, though. Especially in the marathon.
Marathoners are used to getting up at the crack of dawn and racing in the early morning. In Doha, the marathons (as well as the race walks) will be at midnight. For fans and spectators, the views will be spectacular. But for the athletes, it's definitely going to throw them completely out of whack to be finishing the race around 2:30 am. Even if it is for the heat, it's still going to screw them up. Especially since all of the other marathons will stay on their early-morning schedule. And, presumably, so will the Tokyo Olympics, which, because of the late World Championships, are only 10 months later.
The other athletes who I think will be impacted the most by Doha's schedule are the multi-eventers. Decathletes and heptathletes typically spend two entire days at the track, starting in an empty stadium early in the morning session (generally as the first event), continuing all afternoon, and concluding at some point during the evening session. Then turning around and doing it all again the next day.
In Doha, however, the multi-event competitions will all be condensed into a period of about seven hours. The first events will be at 4:30, and the final event of each day will be around midnight. That's great for the recovery between days. But it also means the break between events will be significantly shorter. And they won't get a midday break between sessions like they normally do.
One of the things they did at the exceptional World Championships last summer in London was limit the number of morning sessions, which they think helped attendance (morning sessions, which generally include only preliminary heats, typically feature far more empty seats than the evening sessions of mainly semifinals and finals). Doha has taken that a step further, eliminating morning sessions completely and replacing them with what they're calling "split" evening sessions that start in the late afternoon and have a one-hour break before the finals at night.
Likely a concession to the heat, I doubt this will be a permanent change (I hope it won't be). There's no chance they won't have morning sessions at the Tokyo Olympics or the 2021 Worlds in Eugene for one simple reason. Morning sessions mean more opportunities to sell tickets. And, while Tokyo's heat will also pose a problem (although not to the same extent as Doha), the weather in Oregon for the 2014 World Juniors was beautiful (when it wasn't raining).
Personally, I'd like to see a morning session only on the the four days when they're necessary for the multi-events. And you can limit them to the weekends, too. You have the heptathlon on Saturday and Sunday of the first weekend and the decathlon on Friday and Saturday of the second weekend. You could do the marathons and walks then, too (the 50k walks are simultaneous, and if hold both 20k walks back-to-back on the same day, it'd work).
Anyway, I've got a feeling that this is partially TV-motivated, too. One of the reasons there were afternoon finals in Rio was because that's prime time in Europe. Just like there will likely be morning finals in Tokyo so they can be during prime time in the U.S. (another reason why there will almost certainly be morning sessions at the 2020 Olympics). The time difference to Doha and the times at which events were scheduled puts them during the late afternoon/early evening in Europe and the early afternoon in the U.S. In other words, the perfect time for TV. Even the midnight marathons will start at 4:00 Eastern in the U.S. and prime time in Europe.
There's one last significant change in the schedule that's worth mentioning. The meet will close with the World Championships debut of the mixed 4x400 relay. The IOC added this event to the Olympics for the Tokyo Games, so the IAAF is following suit by adding it to the World Championships. It could provide for an exciting finish to the meet.
As a result, the men's and women's 4x400s have been moved to the opening weekend. I like that change. However, it also means that, counting heats and finals, an athlete that does all three events (the individual and both relays) would potentially have to run seven 400s in 10 days (without even accounting for the possibility of them doing the 200, as well).
Even the countries that are deep enough to not run their top 400 runners until the finals of the relays would still be asking the likes of LaShawn Merritt and Allyson Felix to run five times over the course of the Championships. And, with the regular 4x4's now before the individual 400s, I wonder if they'll choose not to run one or both of the relays. And, if they choose to sit a relay out, which one? Because I doubt the IAAF or IOC wants the mixed 4x4 to get the U.S. or Jamaican or British "B" team (most countries don't have that option to begin with). But that might be exactly what they end up getting.
Hopefully that won't be the case, though. Hopefully these changes all work out for the better and the Doha Worlds are just as glorious as the London Worlds. Regardless, I think this new schedule is a one-and-done thing. Eugene 2021 may not go all the way back to the old schedule, but it likely won't feature midnight marathons, either. One thing seems certain, though. The mixed 4x400 relay is probably going to be the finale moving forward. At both the World Championships and Olympics.
Monday, May 7, 2018
Faces of the Franchise
Every Monday on MLB.com, they do a fun little column with some sort of list including one player from every team. Last week, they did the best names on each team. This week, they've got the longest tenured player on each team who's only been a member of that organization. Some of them are the franchise icons you'd expect. Others were a bit of a surprise.
Anyway, that got me thinking about who would be considered the face of the franchise for all 30 clubs. Some are really easy (Joey Votto, Yadi Molina, Clayton Kershaw), for some teams it was more difficult (MadBum or Buster? Harper or Scherzer?). But this is who I came up with...
Orioles: Manny Machado-For now, Machado's the guy in Baltimore. That is until he's traded at the deadline or signs somewhere else in the offseason. When that happens, it'll become Chris Davis.
Red Sox: Dustin Pedroia-Somebody had to take the reins when David Ortiz retired. Why not the only other guy who was in Boston when they were still cursed? Soon, Pedroia will be gone and Mookie Betts will inherit the crown.
Yankees: Aaron Judge-Out of all the Baby Bombers, Judge is by far the best known. He's the one who took the baseball world by storm last season. He's the one that has his own section of fans at Yankee Stadium and the one that has people showing up in judge's robes and white wigs.
Rays: Chris Archer-Evan Longoria held this title until he was traded to the Giants over the winter. Which means the title has been passed to Chris Archer.
Blue Jays: Josh Donaldson-Same deal in Toronto as Tampa. Jose Bautista is now playing third base in Atlanta. Although, Donaldson was already starting to take over as the Blue Jays' biggest name/most important player last season.
White Sox: Jose Abreu-Chris Sale was the guy until he changed his Sox last year. In the absence of an obvious replacement, I'm going with Abreu, who's probably the biggest name they've got on the South Side.
Indians: Francisco Lindor-We're living in an era of some pretty great shortstops. And you'd be hard-pressed to find one better than Francisco Lindor. He's the Indians' best player, and it's not really a coincidence that the Indians got good as soon as he entered his prime.
Tigers: Miguel Cabrera-He's been a Tiger for so long that most people forget Miggy won his only ring as a rookie with the Marlins in 2003. But he's been in Detroit for more than a decade and will be wearing a Tigers hat on his plaque in Cooperstown.
Royals: Salvador Perez-There are only a handful of players left from their World Series team. One of them is Sal Perez, who's arguably the most important player on the roster. That's why he gets the nod over Alex Gordon.
Twins: Joe Mauer-One of the easier ones. Mauer's from St. Paul, was drafted No. 1 overall by the Twins and has spent his entire career playing for his hometown team. Kinda like Minnesota's version of Cal Ripken.
Astros: Jose Altuve-Plenty of options in Houston. But I'm going with the guy who's been there the longest. The guy who endured all of the losing, only to become the AL MVP and the heart and soul of a World Series winner.
Angels: Mike Trout-Duh. He isn't just the Face of the Angels. He's the Face of Baseball.
Athletics: Marcus Semien-By default he gets it because he's the only guy on the A's I could name at the top of my head who I know has been there for more than 20 minutes.
Mariners: Felix Hernandez-Believe it or not, King Felix made his debut as a 19-year-old in 2005. His numbers have definitely slipped over the past few years, but he's still a franchise icon. And there was that span when he was the only guy that made the Mariners worth watching.
Rangers: Adrian Beltre-Beltre doesn't get much fan fare, but he's a future Hall of Famer who's done most of his damage with Texas. The Rangers have been his team for a while.
Braves: Freddie Freeman-Atlanta's on the verge of being really good, mainly due to all of their really talented young players. But it's their veteran first baseman, Freddie Freeman, who has lasted from the last time they were good until now.
Marlins: J.T. Realmuto-Realmuto's the only guy left after their latest roster purge. As a result, he gets the "Face of the Franchise" nod left vacant by Giancarlo Stanton.
Mets: Jacob de Grom-Sorry David Wright fans, this title goes to people who are actually capable of physically stepping on the field and playing in game (he does understand that he's allowed to retire, right?). And, seeing as the Mets are all about starting pitching, the choices really came down to de Grom and Syndergaard.
Phillies: Rhys Hoskins-Yes, this is probably the most obscure name of the 30 on this list. But that's what happens when you have as much roster turnover as the Phillies have had. Jake Arietta and Carlos Santana are better players than Hoskins, but they haven't been in Philadelphia long enough. None of them are Cole Hamels, though.
Nationals: Bryce Harper-Two reasons why I went with Harper over Scherzer. 1. Harper's been a National from Day 1, while Scherzer came over as a free agent. 2. Harper's the one people either love or hate, which means he draws significantly more outside attention.
Cubs: Kris Bryant-Bryant is right up there in Mike Trout, Bryce Harper territory. The best player on one of the best teams in the game. And to be the Face of the Chicago Cubs is a pretty cool thing. The general consensus is that Bryant is just that.
Reds: Joey Votto-It's become a running joke on MLB.com that the correct answer for anything involving the Reds is "Joey Votto." That's certainly the case here.
Brewers: Ryan Braun-Braun's had a very interesting career. He was the best player on the Brewers when they were really good about 10 years ago, then he had that steroid suspension and receded into the shadows for a few years, only to reemerge and get back near his previous levels. And he's been a Brewer through it all.
Pirates: Starling Marte-Pittsburgh's still looking for that franchise player to replace Andrew McCutchen. They have a lot invested in Starling Marte, including hope that it'll be him. With Gerrit Cole in Houston, he really is the most logical candidate.
Cardinals: Yadier Molina-When they make a list of the greatest Cardinals of all-time, Yadi's name will be right up there with Musial, Gibson, Ozzie and Albert. He's more than just the current face of the franchise. He's a franchise icon.
Diamondbacks: Paul Goldschmidt-They've only been around for 20 years, so the sample size is somewhat small, but Goldschmidt might be the greatest position player in Diamondbacks history.
Rockies: Nolan Arenado-Arenado and Charlie Blackmon haven't quite reached Walker and Helton status yet. (In fact, I'm not even sure they're Tulo and CarGo.) But they'll be in Colorado together for a while. Arenado's my choice as Face of the Franchise, though, because he's been there longer and is the better player.
Dodgers: Clayton Kershaw-Another one that falls into the "Duh" category. Kershaw and the Dodgers are so intertwined that you can't possibly picture him signing with another team when he becomes a free agent after the season.
Padres: Wil Myers-San Diego doesn't have a Tony Gwynn or a Trevor Hoffman or even an Adrian Gonzalez anymore. Chase Headley's back, but he's not quite ready to reclaim his "face of the franchise" mantle. I'm giving it to Wil Myers right now, but don't be surprised if Eric Hosmer claims it before long.
Giants: Madison Bumgarner-If you said that Buster Posey is the Face of the Giants and not Madison Bumgarner, you'd definitely have an argument. MadBum's the straw that stirs the drink, though. He's the ace. He's the one who single-handedly won a World Series. He's the one that the Giants are completely lost without. He's my choice.
Anyway, that got me thinking about who would be considered the face of the franchise for all 30 clubs. Some are really easy (Joey Votto, Yadi Molina, Clayton Kershaw), for some teams it was more difficult (MadBum or Buster? Harper or Scherzer?). But this is who I came up with...
Orioles: Manny Machado-For now, Machado's the guy in Baltimore. That is until he's traded at the deadline or signs somewhere else in the offseason. When that happens, it'll become Chris Davis.
Red Sox: Dustin Pedroia-Somebody had to take the reins when David Ortiz retired. Why not the only other guy who was in Boston when they were still cursed? Soon, Pedroia will be gone and Mookie Betts will inherit the crown.
Yankees: Aaron Judge-Out of all the Baby Bombers, Judge is by far the best known. He's the one who took the baseball world by storm last season. He's the one that has his own section of fans at Yankee Stadium and the one that has people showing up in judge's robes and white wigs.
Rays: Chris Archer-Evan Longoria held this title until he was traded to the Giants over the winter. Which means the title has been passed to Chris Archer.
Blue Jays: Josh Donaldson-Same deal in Toronto as Tampa. Jose Bautista is now playing third base in Atlanta. Although, Donaldson was already starting to take over as the Blue Jays' biggest name/most important player last season.
White Sox: Jose Abreu-Chris Sale was the guy until he changed his Sox last year. In the absence of an obvious replacement, I'm going with Abreu, who's probably the biggest name they've got on the South Side.
Indians: Francisco Lindor-We're living in an era of some pretty great shortstops. And you'd be hard-pressed to find one better than Francisco Lindor. He's the Indians' best player, and it's not really a coincidence that the Indians got good as soon as he entered his prime.
Tigers: Miguel Cabrera-He's been a Tiger for so long that most people forget Miggy won his only ring as a rookie with the Marlins in 2003. But he's been in Detroit for more than a decade and will be wearing a Tigers hat on his plaque in Cooperstown.
Royals: Salvador Perez-There are only a handful of players left from their World Series team. One of them is Sal Perez, who's arguably the most important player on the roster. That's why he gets the nod over Alex Gordon.
Twins: Joe Mauer-One of the easier ones. Mauer's from St. Paul, was drafted No. 1 overall by the Twins and has spent his entire career playing for his hometown team. Kinda like Minnesota's version of Cal Ripken.
Astros: Jose Altuve-Plenty of options in Houston. But I'm going with the guy who's been there the longest. The guy who endured all of the losing, only to become the AL MVP and the heart and soul of a World Series winner.
Angels: Mike Trout-Duh. He isn't just the Face of the Angels. He's the Face of Baseball.
Athletics: Marcus Semien-By default he gets it because he's the only guy on the A's I could name at the top of my head who I know has been there for more than 20 minutes.
Mariners: Felix Hernandez-Believe it or not, King Felix made his debut as a 19-year-old in 2005. His numbers have definitely slipped over the past few years, but he's still a franchise icon. And there was that span when he was the only guy that made the Mariners worth watching.
Rangers: Adrian Beltre-Beltre doesn't get much fan fare, but he's a future Hall of Famer who's done most of his damage with Texas. The Rangers have been his team for a while.
Braves: Freddie Freeman-Atlanta's on the verge of being really good, mainly due to all of their really talented young players. But it's their veteran first baseman, Freddie Freeman, who has lasted from the last time they were good until now.
Marlins: J.T. Realmuto-Realmuto's the only guy left after their latest roster purge. As a result, he gets the "Face of the Franchise" nod left vacant by Giancarlo Stanton.
Mets: Jacob de Grom-Sorry David Wright fans, this title goes to people who are actually capable of physically stepping on the field and playing in game (he does understand that he's allowed to retire, right?). And, seeing as the Mets are all about starting pitching, the choices really came down to de Grom and Syndergaard.
Phillies: Rhys Hoskins-Yes, this is probably the most obscure name of the 30 on this list. But that's what happens when you have as much roster turnover as the Phillies have had. Jake Arietta and Carlos Santana are better players than Hoskins, but they haven't been in Philadelphia long enough. None of them are Cole Hamels, though.
Nationals: Bryce Harper-Two reasons why I went with Harper over Scherzer. 1. Harper's been a National from Day 1, while Scherzer came over as a free agent. 2. Harper's the one people either love or hate, which means he draws significantly more outside attention.
Cubs: Kris Bryant-Bryant is right up there in Mike Trout, Bryce Harper territory. The best player on one of the best teams in the game. And to be the Face of the Chicago Cubs is a pretty cool thing. The general consensus is that Bryant is just that.
Reds: Joey Votto-It's become a running joke on MLB.com that the correct answer for anything involving the Reds is "Joey Votto." That's certainly the case here.
Brewers: Ryan Braun-Braun's had a very interesting career. He was the best player on the Brewers when they were really good about 10 years ago, then he had that steroid suspension and receded into the shadows for a few years, only to reemerge and get back near his previous levels. And he's been a Brewer through it all.
Pirates: Starling Marte-Pittsburgh's still looking for that franchise player to replace Andrew McCutchen. They have a lot invested in Starling Marte, including hope that it'll be him. With Gerrit Cole in Houston, he really is the most logical candidate.
Cardinals: Yadier Molina-When they make a list of the greatest Cardinals of all-time, Yadi's name will be right up there with Musial, Gibson, Ozzie and Albert. He's more than just the current face of the franchise. He's a franchise icon.
Diamondbacks: Paul Goldschmidt-They've only been around for 20 years, so the sample size is somewhat small, but Goldschmidt might be the greatest position player in Diamondbacks history.
Rockies: Nolan Arenado-Arenado and Charlie Blackmon haven't quite reached Walker and Helton status yet. (In fact, I'm not even sure they're Tulo and CarGo.) But they'll be in Colorado together for a while. Arenado's my choice as Face of the Franchise, though, because he's been there longer and is the better player.
Dodgers: Clayton Kershaw-Another one that falls into the "Duh" category. Kershaw and the Dodgers are so intertwined that you can't possibly picture him signing with another team when he becomes a free agent after the season.
Padres: Wil Myers-San Diego doesn't have a Tony Gwynn or a Trevor Hoffman or even an Adrian Gonzalez anymore. Chase Headley's back, but he's not quite ready to reclaim his "face of the franchise" mantle. I'm giving it to Wil Myers right now, but don't be surprised if Eric Hosmer claims it before long.
Giants: Madison Bumgarner-If you said that Buster Posey is the Face of the Giants and not Madison Bumgarner, you'd definitely have an argument. MadBum's the straw that stirs the drink, though. He's the ace. He's the one who single-handedly won a World Series. He's the one that the Giants are completely lost without. He's my choice.
Sunday, May 6, 2018
Oh(tani) What a Sho(hei)
I've gotta admit something. I was wrong about Shohei Ohtani. I thought he was going to be a bust. I thought there was absolutely no chance the pitcher/hitter thing was going to work. Like I said, I was wrong.
Ohtani started off as a bit of a curiosity. Everyone knew about the numbers in Japan that had the scouts salivating and nearly every team trying to get him. But we hadn't seen it for ourselves. Then, after he struggled in Spring Training, we really weren't sure what all the hype was about. Was he really going to be able to pull it off in the Majors?
Well, it's only been a month. But Shohei Ohtani has been nothing short of amazing. He's taken the baseball world by storm much the way Aaron Judge did last year, and he's proven to be worth every penny the Angels spent to get him. (It also leaves me wondering why the season-opening series in Tokyo next year is Mariners-A's instead of Mariners-Angels.)
As a pitcher, he's made five starts. He's 3-1 with a 4.10 ERA, which seems a bit high, but it reflects a three-run homer against Oakland and three runs in an abbreviated start against Boston that he left after two innings with a blister. His other pitching numbers are spectacular, though. An opponents' batting average of .213 a 1.18 WHIP and 32 strikeouts in 26.1 innings.
In just his second start, Ohanti threw an absolute gem against the A's on April 8. He retired the first 19 batters he faced and gave up just one hit over seven shutout innings in a 6-1 Angels win. Oh, and he also struck out 12 in the game.
When not pitching, he moonlights as Anaheim's DH. All he's done at the plate is put together a .339 batting average, which would lead all AL rookies if he had enough at bats to qualify. He's belted four home runs, one in his first at bat against Luis Severino on April 27, and one in three straight games from April 3-6 (which happened to be the second, third and fourth games of his Major League career).
On Opening Day, he batted eighth (which was also Judge's lineup spot on Opening Day last year, BTW). Needless to say, he's moved up significantly in the Angels' order since then. And their lineup is definitely better when he's in it than he isn't. (On Ohtani's pre- and post-pitching off days, Luis Valbuena takes his place in the lineup.)
This is still Mike Trout's team, and Albert's pursuit of 3000 hits gave us a different reason to watch the Angels for a little while. But Shohei Ohtani hasn't just been the toast of baseball. He's been one of the primary reasons why the Angels are in first place in the AL West. There's still a lot of season left, but he's the clear front runner for AL Rookie of the Year right now. And the question isn't whether he'll make the All-Star team, it's whether he'll be an All-Star as a pitcher or a hitter.
Of course, there are still some concerns that come into play with Ohtani's dual role. He twisted his ankle running the bases against the Yankees, and he ended up missing a pitching start because of it. It leaves me (and plenty others) wondering how long he'll be able to sustain doing both, and where the Angels value him more. Although, I think that's a no-brainer. He could be an elite starting pitcher. His stuff is that good. And aces are a lot harder to find than DHes.
But none of that seems relevant right now. As it is, he came into the Majors looking to be the first player to both hit and pitch regularly since Babe Ruth a century ago. And so far, he's succeeded. At both.
Whether or not it can continue, who really cares? Let's just enjoy what we're seeing while we can. Because Shohei Ohtani is absolutely a once-in-a-lifetime type of talent. He's doing something we've never seen before and likely won't see again. And proving his doubters wrong in the process.
Is Shohei Ohtani the real deal? Absolutely. Now I know why 29 other teams were wishing they were the Angels. And for the Angels, it seems like a bargain. Ohtani's been all they could've hoped for and more. In fact, that's what he's been for the entire baseball world. Everything we could've wished for. And so much more.
Ohtani started off as a bit of a curiosity. Everyone knew about the numbers in Japan that had the scouts salivating and nearly every team trying to get him. But we hadn't seen it for ourselves. Then, after he struggled in Spring Training, we really weren't sure what all the hype was about. Was he really going to be able to pull it off in the Majors?
Well, it's only been a month. But Shohei Ohtani has been nothing short of amazing. He's taken the baseball world by storm much the way Aaron Judge did last year, and he's proven to be worth every penny the Angels spent to get him. (It also leaves me wondering why the season-opening series in Tokyo next year is Mariners-A's instead of Mariners-Angels.)
As a pitcher, he's made five starts. He's 3-1 with a 4.10 ERA, which seems a bit high, but it reflects a three-run homer against Oakland and three runs in an abbreviated start against Boston that he left after two innings with a blister. His other pitching numbers are spectacular, though. An opponents' batting average of .213 a 1.18 WHIP and 32 strikeouts in 26.1 innings.
In just his second start, Ohanti threw an absolute gem against the A's on April 8. He retired the first 19 batters he faced and gave up just one hit over seven shutout innings in a 6-1 Angels win. Oh, and he also struck out 12 in the game.
When not pitching, he moonlights as Anaheim's DH. All he's done at the plate is put together a .339 batting average, which would lead all AL rookies if he had enough at bats to qualify. He's belted four home runs, one in his first at bat against Luis Severino on April 27, and one in three straight games from April 3-6 (which happened to be the second, third and fourth games of his Major League career).
On Opening Day, he batted eighth (which was also Judge's lineup spot on Opening Day last year, BTW). Needless to say, he's moved up significantly in the Angels' order since then. And their lineup is definitely better when he's in it than he isn't. (On Ohtani's pre- and post-pitching off days, Luis Valbuena takes his place in the lineup.)
This is still Mike Trout's team, and Albert's pursuit of 3000 hits gave us a different reason to watch the Angels for a little while. But Shohei Ohtani hasn't just been the toast of baseball. He's been one of the primary reasons why the Angels are in first place in the AL West. There's still a lot of season left, but he's the clear front runner for AL Rookie of the Year right now. And the question isn't whether he'll make the All-Star team, it's whether he'll be an All-Star as a pitcher or a hitter.
Of course, there are still some concerns that come into play with Ohtani's dual role. He twisted his ankle running the bases against the Yankees, and he ended up missing a pitching start because of it. It leaves me (and plenty others) wondering how long he'll be able to sustain doing both, and where the Angels value him more. Although, I think that's a no-brainer. He could be an elite starting pitcher. His stuff is that good. And aces are a lot harder to find than DHes.
But none of that seems relevant right now. As it is, he came into the Majors looking to be the first player to both hit and pitch regularly since Babe Ruth a century ago. And so far, he's succeeded. At both.
Whether or not it can continue, who really cares? Let's just enjoy what we're seeing while we can. Because Shohei Ohtani is absolutely a once-in-a-lifetime type of talent. He's doing something we've never seen before and likely won't see again. And proving his doubters wrong in the process.
Is Shohei Ohtani the real deal? Absolutely. Now I know why 29 other teams were wishing they were the Angels. And for the Angels, it seems like a bargain. Ohtani's been all they could've hoped for and more. In fact, that's what he's been for the entire baseball world. Everything we could've wished for. And so much more.
Friday, May 4, 2018
Slowly Changing Football As We Know It
The kickoff isn't going anywhere...at least not yet. That "reassurance" was provided to us by Packers President Mark Murphy after they announced rule changes earlier this week designed at making the kickoff safer. He made no promises about 2019, however. And it leaves you wondering if it's only a matter of time until the kickoff goes the way of the intentional walk.
It's admirable that they're trying to make kickoffs safer. Most people consider the kickoff to be the most dangerous play in football, and, according to the NFL's research, there have been 71 concussions on kickoffs over the past three seasons. Which is why they're so concerned about it. And I give them credit for making changes instead of just eliminating the play outright.
What they came up with doesn't actually sound that terrible. They basically want to change the formation to something that resembles a punt. And it's too early to tell whether we'll actually be able to tell the difference. But I hope this rule change does achieve its objective. Because eliminating kickoffs completely would be a terrible idea.
Getting rid of kickoffs would change football as we know it. Plain and simple. The kickoff isn't just exciting, it's an integral part of the game. How do you propose starting the game if there's no kickoff? The XFL method of two guys running after the ball from opposite sides of the field? We all saw how well that worked out!
Frankly, I'm not totally surprised that the kickoff is going to become a casualty of "making the game safer." But, let's be honest. It's got nothing to do with safety. It's because people find them boring. There are so many touchbacks that it leaves you wondering "what's the point?" (I'm sick of seeing touchbacks on seemingly every kickoff, too, by the way!)
Of course, the reason there are so many touchbacks is because they changed that rule a couple years ago, and the ball now comes out to the 25 instead of the 20 (but it still comes out to the 20 after punts, which is super annoying, make it consistent!). And they've already gotten rid of kickoffs in the Pro Bowl, where the ball just comes out to the 25 to start each offensive possession.
I've tried not to pay too much attention to that Alliance of American Football (or whatever that stupid league is called), but one of their rules that they're so proud of is that they won't have any kickoffs. Instead teams will begin each possession at the 25. And, as further proof that the AAF has absolutely no regard for the kicking game, they won't have extra points, either. Teams will be required to go for two after every touchdown. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those teams don't even carry a kicker on the roster.
There's a lot of value in the kickoff, though. So much that eliminating it from the game would fundamentally change it. And not necessarily for the better.
Just think of how many Super Bowls have been impacted by kickoffs. Desmond Howard was the MVP of Super Bowl XXXI mainly because of a 99-yard kickoff return for a touchdown. The only part of Super Bowl XXXV that was remotely exciting was when there were kickoff return touchdowns on three consecutive plays. Three years later, the Patriots' winning drive was set up mainly because they got the ball on the 40 after the Panthers' kickoff went out of bounds. And let's not forget, Peyton Manning trailed his first Super Bowl 7-0 before even touching the ball after Devin Hester took the opening kickoff to the house.
And what about the onside kick? What do you propose as the alternative to the onside kick? Do you eliminate that entirely, too, and with it, the ability for teams to come back late in games? Sure, the success rate is only like 1-in-4 (and even lower when they're expecting it). But the onside kick is an integral play that's fundamental to the game. (Speaking of memorable Super Bowl kickoffs, the Saints' surprise onside to start the second half is one of the reasons they won Super Bowl XLIV.)
Again, I'm all for making the game safer. And I understand that I'm just overreacting to something that may or may not ever actually happen. But once the idea is thrown out there, you know it's on the radar. And once something gets on the NFL's radar, it's unlikely to come off. So, it does seem like the kickoff is on its last legs. Which is a shame.
It's admirable that they're trying to make kickoffs safer. Most people consider the kickoff to be the most dangerous play in football, and, according to the NFL's research, there have been 71 concussions on kickoffs over the past three seasons. Which is why they're so concerned about it. And I give them credit for making changes instead of just eliminating the play outright.
What they came up with doesn't actually sound that terrible. They basically want to change the formation to something that resembles a punt. And it's too early to tell whether we'll actually be able to tell the difference. But I hope this rule change does achieve its objective. Because eliminating kickoffs completely would be a terrible idea.
Getting rid of kickoffs would change football as we know it. Plain and simple. The kickoff isn't just exciting, it's an integral part of the game. How do you propose starting the game if there's no kickoff? The XFL method of two guys running after the ball from opposite sides of the field? We all saw how well that worked out!
Frankly, I'm not totally surprised that the kickoff is going to become a casualty of "making the game safer." But, let's be honest. It's got nothing to do with safety. It's because people find them boring. There are so many touchbacks that it leaves you wondering "what's the point?" (I'm sick of seeing touchbacks on seemingly every kickoff, too, by the way!)
Of course, the reason there are so many touchbacks is because they changed that rule a couple years ago, and the ball now comes out to the 25 instead of the 20 (but it still comes out to the 20 after punts, which is super annoying, make it consistent!). And they've already gotten rid of kickoffs in the Pro Bowl, where the ball just comes out to the 25 to start each offensive possession.
I've tried not to pay too much attention to that Alliance of American Football (or whatever that stupid league is called), but one of their rules that they're so proud of is that they won't have any kickoffs. Instead teams will begin each possession at the 25. And, as further proof that the AAF has absolutely no regard for the kicking game, they won't have extra points, either. Teams will be required to go for two after every touchdown. I wouldn't be surprised if some of those teams don't even carry a kicker on the roster.
There's a lot of value in the kickoff, though. So much that eliminating it from the game would fundamentally change it. And not necessarily for the better.
Just think of how many Super Bowls have been impacted by kickoffs. Desmond Howard was the MVP of Super Bowl XXXI mainly because of a 99-yard kickoff return for a touchdown. The only part of Super Bowl XXXV that was remotely exciting was when there were kickoff return touchdowns on three consecutive plays. Three years later, the Patriots' winning drive was set up mainly because they got the ball on the 40 after the Panthers' kickoff went out of bounds. And let's not forget, Peyton Manning trailed his first Super Bowl 7-0 before even touching the ball after Devin Hester took the opening kickoff to the house.
And what about the onside kick? What do you propose as the alternative to the onside kick? Do you eliminate that entirely, too, and with it, the ability for teams to come back late in games? Sure, the success rate is only like 1-in-4 (and even lower when they're expecting it). But the onside kick is an integral play that's fundamental to the game. (Speaking of memorable Super Bowl kickoffs, the Saints' surprise onside to start the second half is one of the reasons they won Super Bowl XLIV.)
Again, I'm all for making the game safer. And I understand that I'm just overreacting to something that may or may not ever actually happen. But once the idea is thrown out there, you know it's on the radar. And once something gets on the NFL's radar, it's unlikely to come off. So, it does seem like the kickoff is on its last legs. Which is a shame.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)