If I've learned anything about the NFL this season, it's that you can't predict anything in the NFL. There were a number of games this past weekend that had playoff implications, and they all yielded results that impacted the entire race. So, basically, everybody that could've clinched something lost, a number of teams that needed to win did, and the Week 16 and 17 games will be crazy. Especially with a number of these playoff contenders playing each other.
Let's start in the AFC, where Denver's loss to the Chargers on Thursday night is what got this all started. That opened things up for the Patriots, who would've moved into the No. 1 position had they beaten the Dolphins. Except New England lost, meaning they had to wait around and see if Cincinnati would knock them out of the second bye. Then the Bengals go get absolutely shellacked on Sunday night in Pittsburgh, keeping the top three spots exactly the same. That wasn't all, either. The Dolphin win put them into the second wild card spot over the Ravens, who then got it back with their Monday night win in Detroit, which was only clinched on a 61-yard field goal in the final minute.
The big winners here? Well, obviously, Baltimore. The AFC North wasn't even considered a possibility entering play this week. Now the Ravens are in a position that if they win their last two games, they'll win a division that everyone has assumed Cincinnati would win for weeks now. Of course, winning their last two is easier said than done (the Ravens have the Patriots and Bengals left), but I wouldn't sleep on Baltimore, either. They won the Super Bowl last year for a reason.
The AFC's other big winner was Kansas City. They crushed Oakland as expected, locking up their playoff berth. But the AFC West is suddenly back in play. Denver still has the upper hand by virtue of their sweeping the season series with the Chiefs, but the Chiefs still have hope of hosting a playoff game at Arrowhead. Two wins and Bronco loss is all it takes. Chances are we'll still have a Kansas City-Indianapolis wild card game. It doesn't seem so guaranteed anymore, though.
Moving over to the NFC, the only thing that seems certain is that Seattle will be the No. 1 seed (and very tough to beat). The Seahawks just need a win or a 49er loss to wrap up home field. Other than that, though, we've got really no idea how the NFC is going to play out. That's thanks to Dallas, Detroit and New Orleans losses in Week 15.
We'll start in the South, the division that will give us the NFC's No. 2 seed. It's looked like a virtual certainty for much of the season that that would be New Orleans. Especially after the Saints beat Carolina handily in Week 14. So what happens in Week 15? The Panthers win and the Saints, inexplicably, get smacked in St. Louis. So, going into the rematch on Sunday, we're right back where we started. The winner will boast first-place in the NFC South and be in the driver's seat for the No. 2 seed (in fact, the Saints would clinch that spot with a win), but that doesn't seem too guaranteed. Carolina is extremely tough at home, and New Orleans has struggled on the road.
Speaking of the Panthers, it looks like they're going to be in the playoffs no matter what, with that other wild card probably coming out of the West. The 49ers are hot, the defending NFC champions, and playing like a playoff team. I'd still be surprised if they're not the No. 6 seed, but that Week 17 matchup with Arizona has suddenly become a lot more significant. The 49ers can't slip up on Monday night against Falcons. Otherwise, that becomes a winner-take-all showdown for the NFC's second wild card spot and a trip to Dallas/Philadelphia in the playoffs. And as for the Cardinals, wait 'til next year. They're going to be really good next season. They might even end up guest starring in the 2013 playoffs.
I saved the "best" for last. Nobody wants to win the NFC East or the NFC North. Dallas, Dallas, Dallas. Where do I start with the Cowboys? That was some of the worst game management I've ever seen on Sunday. How do you blow a 23-point halftime lead? More importantly, why are you throwing the ball when you have a 23-point halftime lead and a terrible defense? Frankly, the Cowboys deserved to lose that game. And as a result, the Week 17 showdown that most people thought would decide the division could end up being completely meaningless. If the Eagles beat the Bears and Dallas loses to Washington on Sunday, Philadelphia clinches the division. And even if Dallas does get into the playoffs, there's no chance they get beyond that first game. Especially if it's against Carolina.
The craziest division of them all, though, is the NFC North. We've got a three-way race between the Lions, Bears and Packers, all of whom seem to be trying not to get in. Detroit entered Week 15 in first place. When Week 15 ended, the Lions were in third. And no longer in control of their own destiny. The Bears, meanwhile, are just as confusing as the Cowboys. Chicago looks terrible one week, then looks like world-beaters the next. But now they've got Jay Cutler back, so the Bears might be in prime position to make a run. Except their final two games are against the Eagles and the Packers. Ah yes, the Packers. Tony Dungy has theorized that they're going to be the team that wins the NFC North, and that tie takes them out of all potential tiebreakers. It would be crazy if they get Aaron Rodgers back for the final two games and end up winning the division.
There are a few key games that are going to have alot of bearing on the playoff race over the next two weeks. On Sunday, we've got Patriots-Ravens, Saints-Panthers and Bears-Eagles, as well as Seahawks-Cardinals. Then, of course, Week 17 features the now-traditional slate of division matchups, none more important than Chicago-Green Bay, San Francisco-Arizona, Baltimore-Cincinnati and Dallas-Philadelphia. Who wins these games and ends up in the playoffs might not be decided by who's playing the best football, either. It might be decided by who ends up playing worst. Because if this week is any indication, there are some teams that desperately want to be in the playoffs, and others that don't deserve to be there. We'll find out over the next two weeks which is which.
Tuesday, December 17, 2013
Saturday, December 14, 2013
Week 15 NFL Picks
It looks like the weather is going to wreak havoc on the NFL again this week. Fortunately, the Patriots-Dolphins game is in Miami, but the Seahawks are going to get a preview of what the Super Bowl might be like when they visit the Giants at the Meadowlands. We've also got Cleveland and Pittsburgh at home. But that crucial Ravens-Lions game on Monday night won't be affected because of Ford Field's roof. Last week, the snow actually led to a lot of high-scoring contests. I'm curious to see what it'll do this time.
Redskins (3-10) at Falcons (3-10): Atlanta-Last place in the NFC is at stake between two division winners from last season. The Redskins have shut RGIII down for the season, which I think is a good move (they're not going anywhere and he's been hurt all year, why risk it any further?), and Kirk Cousins will get the start. Both teams are a mess, but Atlanta is in slightly better shape. It really doesn't matter, but since the Falcons are less bad, I'm going with them.
Bears (7-6) at Browns (4-9): Chicago-I'm still incredibly confused about Chicago. This much I know, though, the Good Bears showed up Monday night against the Cowboys, keeping their playoff hopes alive in the process. Suddenly, the NFC North is once again very winnable. But they can't fall back into their habit of losing games that they should win. Matchups against the Browns fall into that category.
Texans (2-11) at Colts (8-5): Indianapolis-Coming into the season, we all thought this game might decide the winner of the AFC South. Well, the season has played out a little differently. Indy has already clinched the division and knows it'll probably host Kansas City in a wild card game, while Houston is playing out the string in a lost season, trying desperately to end an 11-game losing streak. The Texans are in the pole position for the No. 1 pick, and they've turned to Wade Phillips for the final three games after finally parting ways with Gary Kubiak. Phillips won't do much to improve his chances of getting the gig full-time this week.
Patriots (10-3) at Dolphins (7-6): New England-Denver's loss on Thursday night certainly changed things in the AFC. Suddenly, New England can take over the No. 1 seed with a win in Miami. That would also wrap up yet another division title for Bradicheck. However, a loss and a Bengals win drops the Patriots to the No. 3 seed. Very interesting possibilites indeed. Made even more interesting by the fact that the Dolphins have playoff chances themselves. This won't be your typical Patriots division game massacre. Miami usually plays them tough regardless, and I fully expect the Dolphins, who have a ton to play for themselves, to give New England quite a challenge. We'll probably see the usual result, though, and that's a Patriots win.
Eagles (8-5) at Vikings (3-9-1): Philadelphia-Thanks to their five-game winning streak, as well as the Cowboys' loss in Chicago on Monday night, the Eagles have a one-game lead in the NFC East. They need to keep it up, too, because they have to go into that Week 17 showdown with the Cowboys either ahead or tied if they have any hope of winning the division. They also know that Dallas has a much tougher game this week. The Eagles know they can't afford NOT to take care of business at the Metrodome.
Seahawks (11-2) at Giants (5-8): Seattle-Seattle missed its chance to wrap up a bye last week, but that's really just a mere formality at this point. In fact, a win and a Saints loss wraps up home field for the Seahawks. Considering how unbeatable they are at home, I wouldn't be surprised if the Seahawks are treating this game as a dress rehearsal for when they return (they hope) to the Meadowlands in February.
49ers (9-4) at Buccaneers (4-9): San Francisco-The Niners needed a win last week, and they got one. And after that big win over Seattle, San Francisco moved right back into playoff position. They know they're not going to win the division, which means they'll have to go on the road in the playoffs, which makes this a good game for them. The 49ers are the better team and they should win, but Tampa Bay's not a pushover and they have to travel cross-country for this game. They also end the season in Arizona, with a playoff berth potentially at stake. For that game to matter, San Francisco needs to win a winnable game against Tampa Bay.
Bills (4-9) at Jaguars (4-9): Jacksonville-This week's AFC installment of "The Bad Teams Have to Play Somebody, too." Coming into the season (even a few weeks ago), I had this tabbed as an easy Buffalo win. But Jacksovnille, amazingly, is the better team right now. They've won four out of five. Granted, it hasn't been against the cream of the crop, but it's still four out of five. Make it five out of six.
Chiefs (10-3) at Raiders (4-9): Kansas City-The Chiefs can clinch their playoff spot this week, and the AFC West is even suddenly back in play thanks to the Chargers. We've all known for weeks that Kansas City was going to make the playoffs, and the Chiefs have bounced back nicely after hitting that little snag. They're only 1-3 against the division, but that 1 was against the Raiders, and there's no reason to belive they won't beat their archrivals again.
Jets (6-7) at Panthers (9-4): Carolina-The Jets won last week and think they're playoff contenders again. They're still not. The Panthers, meanwhile, finally had their winning streak snapped with that humbling defeat in New Orleans on Sunday night. In the end, that's going to be good for Carolina in the long run. Now they know what they'll have to do to win in January. Becuase, unlike the Jets, the Panthers actually are going to make the playoffs.
Packers (6-6-1) at Cowboys (7-6): Dallas-Last week at the end of Sunday Night Football, Tony Dungy was trying to make the argument that the Packers aren't just going to make the playoffs, they're going to win the NFC North. His reasoning was that their tie takes them out of all the tiebreakers. That's true, but he forgot to consider a couple things: Green Bay's remaining schedule is very tough, and Aaron Rodgers is still out. If the Packers are going to make a run, they need him healthy. And he's not playing again this week against a Dallas team that has shown an incredible ability to bounce back this season. Considering how badly they got smacked on Monday night, I'm expecting Dallas to pull out a good one this week.
Cardinals (8-5) at Titans (5-8): Arizona-Here's where we get to start finding some stuff out about the Arizona Cardinals. Are they really playoff contenders? Their record says they are. But they also need to win games, especially road games, as favorites. This week's contest against the Titans in Nashville is one of those. I'm buying what Bruce Arians is selling, but I might be jumping off the Cardinals bandwagon if they can't figure out a way to win this one.
Saints (10-3) at Rams (5-8): New Orleans-St. Louis is the team that nobody good wants to play. The Saints, though, can wrap up their playoff spot this week, and they need to keep playing well if they want to hold off Carolina. If they play the way they did last week against the Panthers and not the week before against Seattle, New Orleans could be a Super Bowl team. The Rams will keep it close, but the Saints will win.
Bengals (9-4) at Steelers (5-8): Cincinnati-Cincinnati is inching closer to an AFC North title, and they can actually wrap it up this week with a win and a Ravens loss. They can even still get a bye if everything falls their way. The Bengals are THAT good, and very few people know about them. Well, they finally get a Sunday night audience against the rival Steelers to show everyone. Of course, Pittsburgh would love to play the role of spoiler, which is really all they've got left this season. Not gonna happen, though.
Ravens (7-6) at Lions (7-6): Baltimore-The game with the biggest playoff implications this week might be the one on Monday night. Baltimore currently has the lead for that second AFC wild card, but their remaining schedule is brutal (division-leading Detroit, division-leading New England, division-leading Cincinnati). I'm not entirely sure Baltimore comes out of that gauntlet unscathed. The Lions, meanwhile, are in a big-time fight for a division title themselves. They'll know coming in what their situation will be, and Detroit could even end up in third place at the end of this week's games. So, yeah, Monday night's important. As for the winner, I just have this feeling it'll be Baltimore.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 13-3
Season: 135-73-1
Redskins (3-10) at Falcons (3-10): Atlanta-Last place in the NFC is at stake between two division winners from last season. The Redskins have shut RGIII down for the season, which I think is a good move (they're not going anywhere and he's been hurt all year, why risk it any further?), and Kirk Cousins will get the start. Both teams are a mess, but Atlanta is in slightly better shape. It really doesn't matter, but since the Falcons are less bad, I'm going with them.
Bears (7-6) at Browns (4-9): Chicago-I'm still incredibly confused about Chicago. This much I know, though, the Good Bears showed up Monday night against the Cowboys, keeping their playoff hopes alive in the process. Suddenly, the NFC North is once again very winnable. But they can't fall back into their habit of losing games that they should win. Matchups against the Browns fall into that category.
Texans (2-11) at Colts (8-5): Indianapolis-Coming into the season, we all thought this game might decide the winner of the AFC South. Well, the season has played out a little differently. Indy has already clinched the division and knows it'll probably host Kansas City in a wild card game, while Houston is playing out the string in a lost season, trying desperately to end an 11-game losing streak. The Texans are in the pole position for the No. 1 pick, and they've turned to Wade Phillips for the final three games after finally parting ways with Gary Kubiak. Phillips won't do much to improve his chances of getting the gig full-time this week.
Patriots (10-3) at Dolphins (7-6): New England-Denver's loss on Thursday night certainly changed things in the AFC. Suddenly, New England can take over the No. 1 seed with a win in Miami. That would also wrap up yet another division title for Bradicheck. However, a loss and a Bengals win drops the Patriots to the No. 3 seed. Very interesting possibilites indeed. Made even more interesting by the fact that the Dolphins have playoff chances themselves. This won't be your typical Patriots division game massacre. Miami usually plays them tough regardless, and I fully expect the Dolphins, who have a ton to play for themselves, to give New England quite a challenge. We'll probably see the usual result, though, and that's a Patriots win.
Eagles (8-5) at Vikings (3-9-1): Philadelphia-Thanks to their five-game winning streak, as well as the Cowboys' loss in Chicago on Monday night, the Eagles have a one-game lead in the NFC East. They need to keep it up, too, because they have to go into that Week 17 showdown with the Cowboys either ahead or tied if they have any hope of winning the division. They also know that Dallas has a much tougher game this week. The Eagles know they can't afford NOT to take care of business at the Metrodome.
Seahawks (11-2) at Giants (5-8): Seattle-Seattle missed its chance to wrap up a bye last week, but that's really just a mere formality at this point. In fact, a win and a Saints loss wraps up home field for the Seahawks. Considering how unbeatable they are at home, I wouldn't be surprised if the Seahawks are treating this game as a dress rehearsal for when they return (they hope) to the Meadowlands in February.
49ers (9-4) at Buccaneers (4-9): San Francisco-The Niners needed a win last week, and they got one. And after that big win over Seattle, San Francisco moved right back into playoff position. They know they're not going to win the division, which means they'll have to go on the road in the playoffs, which makes this a good game for them. The 49ers are the better team and they should win, but Tampa Bay's not a pushover and they have to travel cross-country for this game. They also end the season in Arizona, with a playoff berth potentially at stake. For that game to matter, San Francisco needs to win a winnable game against Tampa Bay.
Bills (4-9) at Jaguars (4-9): Jacksonville-This week's AFC installment of "The Bad Teams Have to Play Somebody, too." Coming into the season (even a few weeks ago), I had this tabbed as an easy Buffalo win. But Jacksovnille, amazingly, is the better team right now. They've won four out of five. Granted, it hasn't been against the cream of the crop, but it's still four out of five. Make it five out of six.
Chiefs (10-3) at Raiders (4-9): Kansas City-The Chiefs can clinch their playoff spot this week, and the AFC West is even suddenly back in play thanks to the Chargers. We've all known for weeks that Kansas City was going to make the playoffs, and the Chiefs have bounced back nicely after hitting that little snag. They're only 1-3 against the division, but that 1 was against the Raiders, and there's no reason to belive they won't beat their archrivals again.
Jets (6-7) at Panthers (9-4): Carolina-The Jets won last week and think they're playoff contenders again. They're still not. The Panthers, meanwhile, finally had their winning streak snapped with that humbling defeat in New Orleans on Sunday night. In the end, that's going to be good for Carolina in the long run. Now they know what they'll have to do to win in January. Becuase, unlike the Jets, the Panthers actually are going to make the playoffs.
Packers (6-6-1) at Cowboys (7-6): Dallas-Last week at the end of Sunday Night Football, Tony Dungy was trying to make the argument that the Packers aren't just going to make the playoffs, they're going to win the NFC North. His reasoning was that their tie takes them out of all the tiebreakers. That's true, but he forgot to consider a couple things: Green Bay's remaining schedule is very tough, and Aaron Rodgers is still out. If the Packers are going to make a run, they need him healthy. And he's not playing again this week against a Dallas team that has shown an incredible ability to bounce back this season. Considering how badly they got smacked on Monday night, I'm expecting Dallas to pull out a good one this week.
Cardinals (8-5) at Titans (5-8): Arizona-Here's where we get to start finding some stuff out about the Arizona Cardinals. Are they really playoff contenders? Their record says they are. But they also need to win games, especially road games, as favorites. This week's contest against the Titans in Nashville is one of those. I'm buying what Bruce Arians is selling, but I might be jumping off the Cardinals bandwagon if they can't figure out a way to win this one.
Saints (10-3) at Rams (5-8): New Orleans-St. Louis is the team that nobody good wants to play. The Saints, though, can wrap up their playoff spot this week, and they need to keep playing well if they want to hold off Carolina. If they play the way they did last week against the Panthers and not the week before against Seattle, New Orleans could be a Super Bowl team. The Rams will keep it close, but the Saints will win.
Bengals (9-4) at Steelers (5-8): Cincinnati-Cincinnati is inching closer to an AFC North title, and they can actually wrap it up this week with a win and a Ravens loss. They can even still get a bye if everything falls their way. The Bengals are THAT good, and very few people know about them. Well, they finally get a Sunday night audience against the rival Steelers to show everyone. Of course, Pittsburgh would love to play the role of spoiler, which is really all they've got left this season. Not gonna happen, though.
Ravens (7-6) at Lions (7-6): Baltimore-The game with the biggest playoff implications this week might be the one on Monday night. Baltimore currently has the lead for that second AFC wild card, but their remaining schedule is brutal (division-leading Detroit, division-leading New England, division-leading Cincinnati). I'm not entirely sure Baltimore comes out of that gauntlet unscathed. The Lions, meanwhile, are in a big-time fight for a division title themselves. They'll know coming in what their situation will be, and Detroit could even end up in third place at the end of this week's games. So, yeah, Monday night's important. As for the winner, I just have this feeling it'll be Baltimore.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 13-3
Season: 135-73-1
Wednesday, December 11, 2013
Another Unnecessary Overreaction
Major League Baseball announced today that they're going to implement a rules change banning home plate collisions, potentially as early as next season. There's been talk about this for a while, but the powers that be were finally able to get their way and push it across. If the players' union approves it, the rules change goes into effect next year. Otherwise, it'll be implemented in 2015.
All of the delays in this rule being put into place got me optimistic. I was hoping they wouldn't actually do it. Because I think it's a mistake. It's an unnecessary overreaction to some freak injuries, most notably Buster Posey's season-ending broken leg in 2011. But mostly, you're changing the way the game is played. That's why I think it's the wrong move.
The whole point of baseball is trying to score more runs than the other team. Runners on third base are still going to round for home and try to score. Fielders are still going to throw home so that they can't. Collisions are inevitable. Especially when the ball and the runner get there at the same time.
Catchers are taught to block the plate. The good ones know how to do it right without getting hurt. Likewise, base runners are taught to try and knock the ball out of the catcher's glove, in addition to making sure they touch the plate. That's the way baseball is played. What's the alternative? Just letting the guy score?
Now you're telling them that they suddenly have to play the game differently. Under the new rule, catchers won't be allowed to block the plate and base runners won't be allowed to target catchers. And evidently the umpires will be able to immediately go to replay to determine whether or not either of those things occurred. The most ridiculous part is that catchers or runners who break the new rules will be subject to "disciplinary action." What that means exactly, who knows? Are they ejected from the game? Fined? Suspended?
Injury concerns are obviously a big reason why people pushed for this rules change. After Posey got hurt, everybody starting freaking out. You had GMs and managers telling their catchers not to block the plate, going against everything they've ever been taught since Little League. You had runners saying they were going to slide differently so that they wouldn't get hurt. If a catcher or base runner wants to take it upon himself to change the way he plays, that's his prerogative. But it's something different entirely to mandate it. Whether you're the team or the league.
They claim that concussions are another big worry that has led to this new rule. Well, guess what? There are plenty of other ways you can get a concussion playing baseball. Catchers can get a concussion from getting hit by a foul ball. Same thing with batters getting hit by a pitch. And runners can be sliding head first into second, get kneed in the head by the shortstop, and end up with a concussion that way (a la Justin Morneau). Then there are the two fielders from one team who run into each other, with one (or both) having to leave the game concussed. Or the outfielder trying to rob a home run who runs into the wall or gets hit in the head by the ball. Not to mention the line drives back to the mound, which opens up a whole other ball of wax.
I get what they're trying to do here, and I admire that their biggest concern is player safety. Before there was Posey, there was the most famous home plate collision of all-time, Pete Rose knocking out Ray Fosse to win the 1970 All-Star Game. Even though he played a few more years, Fosse's career was never the same. And that was the All-Star Game! It just goes to show the intensity that goes into the game. You had guys doing everything it took to win. That's the way baseball is supposed to be played.
That's the biggest reason why I'm opposed to a rules change banning plays at the plate. Plays at the plate are a part of baseball. It's been that way for 150 years. Sure, they're not banning plays at the plate per se, but in reality, that's what they're doing. And that's wrong. The worst part, too, is that this will inevitably trickle down into all levels of baseball, changing the sport completely. And not in a good way.
And if you didn't like a World Series game ending on a (correct) obstruction call, just wait until Game 7 of the World Series is decided when the winning run scored easily because the catcher wasn't allowed to block the plate. Yeah, great rule.
All of the delays in this rule being put into place got me optimistic. I was hoping they wouldn't actually do it. Because I think it's a mistake. It's an unnecessary overreaction to some freak injuries, most notably Buster Posey's season-ending broken leg in 2011. But mostly, you're changing the way the game is played. That's why I think it's the wrong move.
The whole point of baseball is trying to score more runs than the other team. Runners on third base are still going to round for home and try to score. Fielders are still going to throw home so that they can't. Collisions are inevitable. Especially when the ball and the runner get there at the same time.
Catchers are taught to block the plate. The good ones know how to do it right without getting hurt. Likewise, base runners are taught to try and knock the ball out of the catcher's glove, in addition to making sure they touch the plate. That's the way baseball is played. What's the alternative? Just letting the guy score?
Now you're telling them that they suddenly have to play the game differently. Under the new rule, catchers won't be allowed to block the plate and base runners won't be allowed to target catchers. And evidently the umpires will be able to immediately go to replay to determine whether or not either of those things occurred. The most ridiculous part is that catchers or runners who break the new rules will be subject to "disciplinary action." What that means exactly, who knows? Are they ejected from the game? Fined? Suspended?
Injury concerns are obviously a big reason why people pushed for this rules change. After Posey got hurt, everybody starting freaking out. You had GMs and managers telling their catchers not to block the plate, going against everything they've ever been taught since Little League. You had runners saying they were going to slide differently so that they wouldn't get hurt. If a catcher or base runner wants to take it upon himself to change the way he plays, that's his prerogative. But it's something different entirely to mandate it. Whether you're the team or the league.
They claim that concussions are another big worry that has led to this new rule. Well, guess what? There are plenty of other ways you can get a concussion playing baseball. Catchers can get a concussion from getting hit by a foul ball. Same thing with batters getting hit by a pitch. And runners can be sliding head first into second, get kneed in the head by the shortstop, and end up with a concussion that way (a la Justin Morneau). Then there are the two fielders from one team who run into each other, with one (or both) having to leave the game concussed. Or the outfielder trying to rob a home run who runs into the wall or gets hit in the head by the ball. Not to mention the line drives back to the mound, which opens up a whole other ball of wax.
I get what they're trying to do here, and I admire that their biggest concern is player safety. Before there was Posey, there was the most famous home plate collision of all-time, Pete Rose knocking out Ray Fosse to win the 1970 All-Star Game. Even though he played a few more years, Fosse's career was never the same. And that was the All-Star Game! It just goes to show the intensity that goes into the game. You had guys doing everything it took to win. That's the way baseball is supposed to be played.
That's the biggest reason why I'm opposed to a rules change banning plays at the plate. Plays at the plate are a part of baseball. It's been that way for 150 years. Sure, they're not banning plays at the plate per se, but in reality, that's what they're doing. And that's wrong. The worst part, too, is that this will inevitably trickle down into all levels of baseball, changing the sport completely. And not in a good way.
And if you didn't like a World Series game ending on a (correct) obstruction call, just wait until Game 7 of the World Series is decided when the winning run scored easily because the catcher wasn't allowed to block the plate. Yeah, great rule.
Monday, December 9, 2013
Three Managers, Three Hall of Famers?
There's going to be plenty of drama heading into the Baseball Hall of Fame election at the beginning of January. Who's going to get in, and how many first-timers? But the Veterans Committee vote, which will be announced on Monday, is just as loaded. The three greatest managers of their era--Joe Torre, Bobby Cox and Tony La Russa--are all up for election, as well as George Steinbrenner, Marvin Miller, Billy Martin and six players. Who's going to get in and who's going to get left out from this incredibly deserving group is just as intriguing a question.
Let's start with how much harder it is to get in on this ballot than the writers' ballot. There's only 16 voters and the 75 percent to get elected is still required, which means, obviously, 12 votes. But here's the catch--each voter is limited to five selections. So, assuming everybody votes for all three managers (which I doubt), there's only 32 total votes left to spread among the remaining nine men. And there's plenty of sentiment out there to right an incredible wrong and finally give Marvin Miller his rightful place in the Hall of Fame, an honor he should've received while he was alive. Basically, what I'm saying here is that it doesn't look good for the players.
Of the six players on the ballot, I think Tommy John and Steve Garvey will receive the highest number of votes. I've been a Garvey advocate for a long time. He was my Jack Morris during his time on the regular ballot. Garvey was the premier first baseman in the National League in the 1970s. To me, being the best player at your position in an entire league for a whole decade is Hall of Fame-worthy. John is better known nowadays for having a surgery named after him, but his career lasted 26 years (due in large part to a certain medical procedure) and he won 288 games.
Neither one of those players will come close to getting in, though. Again, the biggest question here is whether all three managers will be elected or not. And if they're not, which of the three will be left out.
It would be most fitting if Bobby Cox was inducted this year. Greg Maddux will definitely be elected by the writers and Tom Glavine may be as well. Along with John Smoltz, those two pitchers were at the heart of that Braves dynasty, and it would be pretty cool to see Cox go into Cooperstown with them. He's definitely going to be elected eventually. Nobody's ever going to do what he was able to do with the Braves again. 25 years with the same team. 14 straight division titles. Five National League pennants. Sure, Atlanta only won one World Series during his tenure, but that shouldn't be held against him.
After all, Cox lost two of those World Series to Torre's Yankees. Torre and Steinbrenner almost seem like a Cooperstown package deal, but I think the likelihood of a Torre election is far greater than that of a Steinbrenner election. Of course, it was Steinbrenner who brought Torre to the Yankees, and it proved to be the greatest move either of them ever made. Four World Championships in his first five seasons as manager. Four straight pennants from 1998-2001 and six in eight years from 1996-2003. Not to mention 12 postseason appearances in 12 years with the Yankees, then two more in his first two years managing the Dodgers in 2008-09. All this after a borderline Hall of Fame 18-year playing career.
I like Torre's chances at election. But I like Tony La Russa's more. He's third all-time in wins, behind only managerial giants Connie Mack and John McGraw. Two World Championships in St. Louis and one in Oakland, making him one of only two managers (along with Hall of Famer Sparky Anderson) to win a World Series in both leagues. Six pennants during ridiculously successful stints with the A's and Cardinals, as well as an ALCS appearance with the White Sox in 1983. I think La Russa is the most likely candidate to be elected.
If there's any justice in this world, Marvin Miller's name will be announced as a Hall of Famer on Monday, and a member of his family will deliver the speech that Miller himself should've delivered in Cooperstown come July. It's an absolute travesty that he's not in the Hall of Fame yet. Because Marvin Miller has meant as much or more to the game of baseball as everyone who already has a plaque in Cooperstown. In the past, it's been mostly owners and other team executives voting on the Veterans Committee, and a lot of them had a lot of resentment towards Marvin Miller for the rights he earned the players. And it's a shame. Well, there are only four owners/executives on the committee this year. The rest is current Hall of Famers and a couple historians/writers. They know how important Marvin Miller was to the game of baseball. I hope they correct this egregious omission that's gone on way too long. No one belongs in the Hall of Fame more than Marvin Miller. He missed by one vote the last time he was up for election in 2010. Three years ago, he would've been around to celebrate. It's a shame that he won't be able to if he gets that one more vote this year.
The most interesting figure in this group of 12 is Steinbrenner. He was definitely larger than life and he definitely had that love him or hate him personality, but he was also one of the most influential owners in baseball from the time he purchased the Yankees in 1973 until his death in 2010. Steinbrenner understood the business of baseball better than anybody, and he was the first to use free agency to his advantage in building back-to-back World Series winners in 1977-78. Then there was the dynasty in the 90s. In all, the Yankees won seven World Championships and 11 AL pennants under Steinbrenner. He was also responsible for the creation of the YES Network and the construction of the New Yankee Stadium.
Steinbrenner fired Billy Martin so many times that the two are synonymous. Martin's also on the ballot, and it would be some sort of poetic justice if they went into the Hall of Fame together. But I don't think either one will. At least not this year.
If I had a vote, my choices would be easy. I wouldn't vote for a single player. I'd vote for La Russa, Torre, Cox, Miller and Steinbrenner. As for the actual vote, I think La Russa and Torre will be elected, while Cox will just miss out. And I'd love to see Marvin Miller elected, as well. It's not a slam-dunk, but I also like his chances. Not one of these candidates deserves it more.
Let's start with how much harder it is to get in on this ballot than the writers' ballot. There's only 16 voters and the 75 percent to get elected is still required, which means, obviously, 12 votes. But here's the catch--each voter is limited to five selections. So, assuming everybody votes for all three managers (which I doubt), there's only 32 total votes left to spread among the remaining nine men. And there's plenty of sentiment out there to right an incredible wrong and finally give Marvin Miller his rightful place in the Hall of Fame, an honor he should've received while he was alive. Basically, what I'm saying here is that it doesn't look good for the players.
Of the six players on the ballot, I think Tommy John and Steve Garvey will receive the highest number of votes. I've been a Garvey advocate for a long time. He was my Jack Morris during his time on the regular ballot. Garvey was the premier first baseman in the National League in the 1970s. To me, being the best player at your position in an entire league for a whole decade is Hall of Fame-worthy. John is better known nowadays for having a surgery named after him, but his career lasted 26 years (due in large part to a certain medical procedure) and he won 288 games.
Neither one of those players will come close to getting in, though. Again, the biggest question here is whether all three managers will be elected or not. And if they're not, which of the three will be left out.
It would be most fitting if Bobby Cox was inducted this year. Greg Maddux will definitely be elected by the writers and Tom Glavine may be as well. Along with John Smoltz, those two pitchers were at the heart of that Braves dynasty, and it would be pretty cool to see Cox go into Cooperstown with them. He's definitely going to be elected eventually. Nobody's ever going to do what he was able to do with the Braves again. 25 years with the same team. 14 straight division titles. Five National League pennants. Sure, Atlanta only won one World Series during his tenure, but that shouldn't be held against him.
After all, Cox lost two of those World Series to Torre's Yankees. Torre and Steinbrenner almost seem like a Cooperstown package deal, but I think the likelihood of a Torre election is far greater than that of a Steinbrenner election. Of course, it was Steinbrenner who brought Torre to the Yankees, and it proved to be the greatest move either of them ever made. Four World Championships in his first five seasons as manager. Four straight pennants from 1998-2001 and six in eight years from 1996-2003. Not to mention 12 postseason appearances in 12 years with the Yankees, then two more in his first two years managing the Dodgers in 2008-09. All this after a borderline Hall of Fame 18-year playing career.
I like Torre's chances at election. But I like Tony La Russa's more. He's third all-time in wins, behind only managerial giants Connie Mack and John McGraw. Two World Championships in St. Louis and one in Oakland, making him one of only two managers (along with Hall of Famer Sparky Anderson) to win a World Series in both leagues. Six pennants during ridiculously successful stints with the A's and Cardinals, as well as an ALCS appearance with the White Sox in 1983. I think La Russa is the most likely candidate to be elected.
If there's any justice in this world, Marvin Miller's name will be announced as a Hall of Famer on Monday, and a member of his family will deliver the speech that Miller himself should've delivered in Cooperstown come July. It's an absolute travesty that he's not in the Hall of Fame yet. Because Marvin Miller has meant as much or more to the game of baseball as everyone who already has a plaque in Cooperstown. In the past, it's been mostly owners and other team executives voting on the Veterans Committee, and a lot of them had a lot of resentment towards Marvin Miller for the rights he earned the players. And it's a shame. Well, there are only four owners/executives on the committee this year. The rest is current Hall of Famers and a couple historians/writers. They know how important Marvin Miller was to the game of baseball. I hope they correct this egregious omission that's gone on way too long. No one belongs in the Hall of Fame more than Marvin Miller. He missed by one vote the last time he was up for election in 2010. Three years ago, he would've been around to celebrate. It's a shame that he won't be able to if he gets that one more vote this year.
The most interesting figure in this group of 12 is Steinbrenner. He was definitely larger than life and he definitely had that love him or hate him personality, but he was also one of the most influential owners in baseball from the time he purchased the Yankees in 1973 until his death in 2010. Steinbrenner understood the business of baseball better than anybody, and he was the first to use free agency to his advantage in building back-to-back World Series winners in 1977-78. Then there was the dynasty in the 90s. In all, the Yankees won seven World Championships and 11 AL pennants under Steinbrenner. He was also responsible for the creation of the YES Network and the construction of the New Yankee Stadium.
Steinbrenner fired Billy Martin so many times that the two are synonymous. Martin's also on the ballot, and it would be some sort of poetic justice if they went into the Hall of Fame together. But I don't think either one will. At least not this year.
If I had a vote, my choices would be easy. I wouldn't vote for a single player. I'd vote for La Russa, Torre, Cox, Miller and Steinbrenner. As for the actual vote, I think La Russa and Torre will be elected, while Cox will just miss out. And I'd love to see Marvin Miller elected, as well. It's not a slam-dunk, but I also like his chances. Not one of these candidates deserves it more.
Sunday, December 8, 2013
Week 14 NFL Picks
Getting down to the nitty-gritty now. The Seahawks became the first team to clinch a playoff spot on Monday night, and a whole bunch of others can join them this weekend. And, as fate would have it, we've got a bunch of those good teams playing each other. That's what football in December should be about. It's looking like a pretty good slate of games in Week 14.
Colts (8-4) at Bengals (8-4): Cincinnati-The winner here gets the inside track at the No. 3 seed and avoiding Denver (if Cincinnati wins, they've still got a decent chance at a bye, since they beat New England). The Colts can even clinch the AFC South with a win or a Titans loss in Denver. Since this one's an early game, though, Indy won't already know whether or not its in the playoffs at kickoff. The Bengals are a dangerous playoff sleeper. Nobody's talking about them as a Super Bowl contender, but they're on the verge of their third straight playoff appearance. I'm not counting the Bengals out come January. And Cincinnati's the better team. They'll prove it here.
Falcons (3-9) at Packers (5-6-1): Green Bay-They flexed it out of Sunday night for obvious reasons. It looks like Aaron Rodgers is still a no-go for Green Bay, and the nation saw loud and clear how bad this team is without him on Thanksgiving. The Falcons finally snapped their losing streak last week, but only because the Bills gifted them one in Toronto. They haven't won a game in this country since October 20. One of these two has to win. I'll play the weather card and say the Packers pull it out and keep their waning playoff chances alive.
Browns (4-8) at Patriots (9-3): New England-New England once again has just gone about its business. The Patriots can clinch yet another AFC East title and move closer to yet another first-round bye with a win. Although, they do have tough ones coming up at wild card contenders Miami and Baltimore in the next two weeks. All the more reason I'm fairly certain they'll beat Cleveland at home.
Raiders (4-8) at Jets (5-7): Oakland-In a week full of good games, this is the Sunday equivalent of that Jaguars-Texans game we were subjected to on Thursday. This game doesn't matter. The loser's pretty much done. The Jets suck slightly more right now, so I'll say the Raiders "win" by default.
Lions (7-5) at Eagles (7-5): Detroit-Fun fact: I flew from Detroit to Philadelphia this afternoon, although not on a private charter like the Lions. Anyway, it's a matchup of division leaders that's very important for Philly. I think the Lions are going to end up winning the North, simply because of the problems both the Bears and the Packers are having right now. It'll be a fight for the Eagles to win the East, and it'll probably come down to that last game against the Cowboys. The Eagles really need to win this one to make sure that Dallas game means something, but I'm not sure they will.
Dolphins (6-6) at Steelers (5-7): Miami-Don't look now, but Pittsburgh is back in the playoff race. Although, that loss in Baltimore on Thanksgiving night probably doomed the Steelers. The Dolphins' playoff chances are a lot better. In fact, they're tied with Baltimore for the last spot with nothing but division games left after this one. No margin for error for Miami the rest of the way. I'm gonna say the Dolphins win and stay even (at the very least) with the Ravens.
Bills (4-8) at Buccaneers (3-9): Tampa Bay-Remember the middle of the season when we were all trying to figure out when and if Tampa Bay and/or Jacksonville would ever win? Boy, how times have changed. The Jaguars have won three straight and four out of five, and the Bucs are looking to win four out of five themselves. I don't know what happened with the Bills against Atlanta last week. It was bad, though. The Bucs make it four out of five.
Chiefs (9-3) at Redskins (3-9): Kansas City-After three straight losses (all in division games), Kansas City is suddenly staring at the 5-seed. Their chances of making the playoffs are still pretty good, though. In fact, they can wrap up a berth this week. The Redskins were quasi-screwed at the end of the Giants game, but I don't think they would've won anyway. Regardless, Washington's a mess. KC snaps its skid.
Vikings (3-8-1) at Ravens (6-6): Baltimore-With Detroit, New England and Cincinnati left on the schedule, it's not an easy road for the Ravens to get back to the playoffs. But if they get in, they're certainly going to earn it. What that also means, though, is that they absolutely CANNOT, under any circumstances, lose to Minnesota at home.
Titans (5-7) at Broncos (10-2): Denver-Denver doesn't have to do much to clinch a playoff spot. One win or one Dolphins/Ravens loss the rest of the way locks up a berth. Of course, the Broncos are looking at home field right now, and that's the goal, especially now that the division is pretty much out of the way thanks to that sweep of Kansas City. The Titans will provide a small challenge, but not enough to knock off the Broncos in Denver.
Rams (5-7) at Cardinals (7-5): Arizona-That was a tough loss for the Cardinals last week. It put the 49ers back in the driver's seat for the second NFC wild card. With San Francisco playing the Seahawks this week (and Carolina playing New Orleans), it's Arizona's chance to jump right back in the postseason conversation. It's also the Rams' chance to play the role of spoiler. I'm going Arizona, though.
Giants (5-7) at Chargers (5-7): San Diego-The Chargers aren't out of it yet, and they're a good December team. The Giants need to win out and get a lot of help, but I think even they'd admit their playoff chances are slim to none (a loss and a 49ers win eliminates the Giants). It doesn't help that their remaining schedule is brutal (fly cross-country, then play Seattle and Detroit). A San Diego win can put the Giants out of their misery.
Seahawks (11-1) at 49ers (8-4): San Francisco-I don't think there's any doubt that Seattle is far-and-away the best team in the NFC, if not the entire NFL. They thoroughly dismantled the Saints on Monday night. With a win here, their magic number to clinch the 1-seed is one. (Even with a loss, it's still two, seeing as they already beat both New Orleans and Carolina.) As a result, this game is much more important for San Francisco. The 49ers have been embarrassed each of the last two times they played the Seahawks. They haven't forgotten that. They want to make a statement of their own and hand Seattle its first conference loss of the season.
Panthers (9-3) at Saints (9-3): New Orleans-They flexed this one into Sunday night, and can you blame them? The Panthers and Saints are playing twice in the next three weeks, with the 2-seed in the NFC likely at stake. Nobody wants to play Carolina right now. An eight-game winning streak to move into a tie for first place. Nobody wants to play in the Superdome, either. That, I think, is going to be the X-factor in this one. The winning streak ends at the hands of the Saints.
Cowboys (7-5) at Bears (6-6): Dallas-Another important Monday nighter. First-place Dallas is on extended rest after that Thanksgiving win over the Raiders. Chicago, meanwhile, is still the most confusing team in all of football. The Bears are virtually out of the wild card race, but can definitely still win the North. This game and Philly-Detroit will obviously have huge impacts on each other. I don't trust the Bears enough to pick them here, but I also think this is the game where the Cowboys are most likely to slip up before that (probably) winner-take-all season finale against the Eagles.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-4
Season: 123-69-1
Colts (8-4) at Bengals (8-4): Cincinnati-The winner here gets the inside track at the No. 3 seed and avoiding Denver (if Cincinnati wins, they've still got a decent chance at a bye, since they beat New England). The Colts can even clinch the AFC South with a win or a Titans loss in Denver. Since this one's an early game, though, Indy won't already know whether or not its in the playoffs at kickoff. The Bengals are a dangerous playoff sleeper. Nobody's talking about them as a Super Bowl contender, but they're on the verge of their third straight playoff appearance. I'm not counting the Bengals out come January. And Cincinnati's the better team. They'll prove it here.
Falcons (3-9) at Packers (5-6-1): Green Bay-They flexed it out of Sunday night for obvious reasons. It looks like Aaron Rodgers is still a no-go for Green Bay, and the nation saw loud and clear how bad this team is without him on Thanksgiving. The Falcons finally snapped their losing streak last week, but only because the Bills gifted them one in Toronto. They haven't won a game in this country since October 20. One of these two has to win. I'll play the weather card and say the Packers pull it out and keep their waning playoff chances alive.
Browns (4-8) at Patriots (9-3): New England-New England once again has just gone about its business. The Patriots can clinch yet another AFC East title and move closer to yet another first-round bye with a win. Although, they do have tough ones coming up at wild card contenders Miami and Baltimore in the next two weeks. All the more reason I'm fairly certain they'll beat Cleveland at home.
Raiders (4-8) at Jets (5-7): Oakland-In a week full of good games, this is the Sunday equivalent of that Jaguars-Texans game we were subjected to on Thursday. This game doesn't matter. The loser's pretty much done. The Jets suck slightly more right now, so I'll say the Raiders "win" by default.
Lions (7-5) at Eagles (7-5): Detroit-Fun fact: I flew from Detroit to Philadelphia this afternoon, although not on a private charter like the Lions. Anyway, it's a matchup of division leaders that's very important for Philly. I think the Lions are going to end up winning the North, simply because of the problems both the Bears and the Packers are having right now. It'll be a fight for the Eagles to win the East, and it'll probably come down to that last game against the Cowboys. The Eagles really need to win this one to make sure that Dallas game means something, but I'm not sure they will.
Dolphins (6-6) at Steelers (5-7): Miami-Don't look now, but Pittsburgh is back in the playoff race. Although, that loss in Baltimore on Thanksgiving night probably doomed the Steelers. The Dolphins' playoff chances are a lot better. In fact, they're tied with Baltimore for the last spot with nothing but division games left after this one. No margin for error for Miami the rest of the way. I'm gonna say the Dolphins win and stay even (at the very least) with the Ravens.
Bills (4-8) at Buccaneers (3-9): Tampa Bay-Remember the middle of the season when we were all trying to figure out when and if Tampa Bay and/or Jacksonville would ever win? Boy, how times have changed. The Jaguars have won three straight and four out of five, and the Bucs are looking to win four out of five themselves. I don't know what happened with the Bills against Atlanta last week. It was bad, though. The Bucs make it four out of five.
Chiefs (9-3) at Redskins (3-9): Kansas City-After three straight losses (all in division games), Kansas City is suddenly staring at the 5-seed. Their chances of making the playoffs are still pretty good, though. In fact, they can wrap up a berth this week. The Redskins were quasi-screwed at the end of the Giants game, but I don't think they would've won anyway. Regardless, Washington's a mess. KC snaps its skid.
Vikings (3-8-1) at Ravens (6-6): Baltimore-With Detroit, New England and Cincinnati left on the schedule, it's not an easy road for the Ravens to get back to the playoffs. But if they get in, they're certainly going to earn it. What that also means, though, is that they absolutely CANNOT, under any circumstances, lose to Minnesota at home.
Titans (5-7) at Broncos (10-2): Denver-Denver doesn't have to do much to clinch a playoff spot. One win or one Dolphins/Ravens loss the rest of the way locks up a berth. Of course, the Broncos are looking at home field right now, and that's the goal, especially now that the division is pretty much out of the way thanks to that sweep of Kansas City. The Titans will provide a small challenge, but not enough to knock off the Broncos in Denver.
Rams (5-7) at Cardinals (7-5): Arizona-That was a tough loss for the Cardinals last week. It put the 49ers back in the driver's seat for the second NFC wild card. With San Francisco playing the Seahawks this week (and Carolina playing New Orleans), it's Arizona's chance to jump right back in the postseason conversation. It's also the Rams' chance to play the role of spoiler. I'm going Arizona, though.
Giants (5-7) at Chargers (5-7): San Diego-The Chargers aren't out of it yet, and they're a good December team. The Giants need to win out and get a lot of help, but I think even they'd admit their playoff chances are slim to none (a loss and a 49ers win eliminates the Giants). It doesn't help that their remaining schedule is brutal (fly cross-country, then play Seattle and Detroit). A San Diego win can put the Giants out of their misery.
Seahawks (11-1) at 49ers (8-4): San Francisco-I don't think there's any doubt that Seattle is far-and-away the best team in the NFC, if not the entire NFL. They thoroughly dismantled the Saints on Monday night. With a win here, their magic number to clinch the 1-seed is one. (Even with a loss, it's still two, seeing as they already beat both New Orleans and Carolina.) As a result, this game is much more important for San Francisco. The 49ers have been embarrassed each of the last two times they played the Seahawks. They haven't forgotten that. They want to make a statement of their own and hand Seattle its first conference loss of the season.
Panthers (9-3) at Saints (9-3): New Orleans-They flexed this one into Sunday night, and can you blame them? The Panthers and Saints are playing twice in the next three weeks, with the 2-seed in the NFC likely at stake. Nobody wants to play Carolina right now. An eight-game winning streak to move into a tie for first place. Nobody wants to play in the Superdome, either. That, I think, is going to be the X-factor in this one. The winning streak ends at the hands of the Saints.
Cowboys (7-5) at Bears (6-6): Dallas-Another important Monday nighter. First-place Dallas is on extended rest after that Thanksgiving win over the Raiders. Chicago, meanwhile, is still the most confusing team in all of football. The Bears are virtually out of the wild card race, but can definitely still win the North. This game and Philly-Detroit will obviously have huge impacts on each other. I don't trust the Bears enough to pick them here, but I also think this is the game where the Cowboys are most likely to slip up before that (probably) winner-take-all season finale against the Eagles.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-4
Season: 123-69-1
Friday, December 6, 2013
First Reaction to the Draw
Can you say "Group of Death?" That's exactly what the USA is facing after today's brutal World Cup draw. I don't feel as bad as I would if they USA had been drawn into Group D with Uruguay, Italy and England (the unfortunate assignment that was drawn by Costa Rica), but this one is just as brutal. And as they were drawing Pot 3, I was praying for H (and came thisclose to it).
So, other than the initial shock of the U.S. being drawn into the same group as perennial power Germany and perennial thorn-in-the-side Ghana, here are my thoughts on the entire World Cup draw, going in group order:
Group A: Brazil, Croatia, Mexico, Cameroon
Our opening match will be Brazil vs. Croatia is Sao Paulo. You knew Brazil was going to get it somewhat easy if they didn't get that second European team, and sure enough, that was the case. Should be fairly easy for the hosts to make it out of this group. The European team certainly could've been tougher, and Cameroon is the lowest-ranked side in the entire tournament. You never know what you're going to get from Mexico, though. They, of course, almost didn't get out of CONCACAF qualifying, then completely dominated New Zealand in the two-legged play-in. If that Mexican team shows up, look out. Overall, a very favorable draw for El Tri. I think the Mexico-Croatia winner joins Brazil in round two.
Group B: Spain, Netherlands, Chile, Australia
We knew one of the seeds was going to end up getting the Netherlands in its group and sure enough it was Spain. And, as fate would have it, the first match in this group is a rematch of the 2010 final (FIFA, do you still think not seeding the Dutch was a good idea?). The winner of that match is in the driver's seat to avoid the Round of 16 matchup with Brazil (and it would really be unfortunate if we end up with Brazil-Spain in the Round of 16 instead of the final). This is probably the third-best group in terms of quality of the four teams. Australia's no pushover, and Chile, especially playing in South America, is going to be a tough matchup for both of the favored sides. However, Spain and the Netherlands are simply too good. It's a shame that they have to play each other this early in the tournament.
Group C: Colombia, Greece, Cote d'Ivoire, Japan
Colombia perhaps got it the best of all the seeds. This group is certainly winnable for them, especially since they'll have the quasi-homefield advantage. This is also a great draw for Cote d'Ivoire. They're the strongest African squad, and they suffered being in the Group of Death in 2010, so I guess this is their reward. I fully expect them to advance, and I don't think winning the group is out of the question. Japan also might sneak in there. I didn't really consider the Japanese as a contender for round two until the draw came out and they ended up in a group where them finishing second doesn't seem like that far of a reach. I'll take Colombia and Cote d'Ivoire to advance, though.
Group D: Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy
Group of Death, Part I. Good luck Costa Rica. There are three former World Cup champions in this group, and one of them isn't going to advance. First off, let's talk about the ridiculousness of "Pot X" and Italy ending up as the odd-man out when it came to the European teams. They should've been seeded. That's point No. 1. But then to take them and put them with the African teams, knowing that they were automatically going to face a South American seed? Time to rethink your seeding and draw procedures before Russia 2018. Anyway, there's no way Uruguay doesn't come out of this group, especially with the proximity of Uruguay to Brazil. Those fans are going to be loud! It really could come down to who wins that England-Italy game for the second spot, although how much the three beat Costa Rica by could definitely come into play. I've gotta think the Italians, after their terrible World Cup in 2010, then after getting screwed in the seeding, then getting screwed in the draw, will be pissed off enough to make everyone else in the group pay. Italy and Uruguay (the teams that played in the bronze medal match at the Confederations Cup) advance.
Group E: Switzerland, Ecuador, France, Honduras
The French should be saying a big "Merci" to FIFA (or, more specifically the French head of UEFA) for this draw. Because instead of being in Pot 2 like they should've been as the lowest-ranked European team, they end up in a group where Les Bleues advancing to round two doesn't seem that far-fetched. The Swiss shouldn't have been seeded, and this along with H, is probably the softest group of them all. Ecuador's going to win this group. There's no doubt in my mind about that. They couldn't have asked for a better draw. Honduras even has a shot to come out of Group E. I think that second spot goes to one of the two luckiest European teams in the field, though. Whoever wins the Switzerland-France game moves on. Since the French have a tendency to stink it up at the World Cup, though, I'll say it's Switzerland. After all, they did beat Spain in the opening game in 2010.
Group F: Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Nigeria
A dream draw for Argentina, a side that I wouldn't be surprised to win the whole thing. They even got a game near the border in Porto Alegre, so it's their dream draw not just in terms of teams, but in terms of where they're going to play (their opener's at Maracana). Nigeria seems to always end up in the same group as Argentina, but this time that could be a good thing. There's no prohibitive favorite for the second spot, which seems wide open. Bosnia's also got to like its chances in its World Cup debut. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that Bosnia's the second-best team in this group. In fact, I see them advancing alongside the Argentines.
Group G: Germany, Portugal, Ghana, United States
So much for those visions of grandeur for Team USA. Group of Death II is about as bad as it could've gotten for the U.S. Probably the only thing worse would've been Italy or Holland instead of Portugal. I'm not saying they can't or even that they won't advance. All I'm saying is that Group H would've been a lot more preferable to Group G. You do have the Klinsmann vs. Germany storyline and the Boateng brothers storyline, as well as Portugal's memories of losing to the U.S. in 2002, and the Americans' knowledge that it was Ghana that knocked them out of the previous two World Cups. Other than Germany being the favorite, this group is way too wide-open to make any sort of predictions. Although, that's usually the case with the Group of Death. I don't have that much faith in Portugal, so I'll say the second spot goes to the USA-Ghana winner. If the Americans lose that game, the World Cup could be over before it starts, especially with Germany looming in the final game of group play. Whoever finishes second in this group, though, has a decent-looking path to the semifinals. Better than even Germany's. So, I guess that's some kind of reward for coming out of the toughest draw.
Group H: Belgium, Algeria, Russia, South Korea
From arguably the best group in the entire tournament, to arguably the worst. Belgium's probably going to win the group by default. Once again, an undeserving seed gets a cupcake of a draw and virtual free pass to the second round. Algeria's not going to advance, so they're not even worth discussing. Russia could be interesting. Second place in this group (or even first) is very attainable, and that would set the Russians up on a nice path leading up to their hosting in 2018. South Korea's a dark horse though. Talk about a gift. They're capable of beating all three of these teams. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the Koreans advance. Regardless, the two teams that move on lose to the Group G teams in the Round of 16. (And, for the record, if that dude pulls out Korea's ball first and the U.S. ends up in this group, they probably end up as group favorites. But so is the luck of the draw, especially when FIFA's involved.)
That's my initial take. There's still six months until the World Cup, though, so I don't want to get too involved in making picks right now beyond my first impressions of who I think might end up coming out. Way too much time left. Let the discussions begin, though. One thing's for sure, however. I can't wait until Brazil-Croatia on June 12.
So, other than the initial shock of the U.S. being drawn into the same group as perennial power Germany and perennial thorn-in-the-side Ghana, here are my thoughts on the entire World Cup draw, going in group order:
Group A: Brazil, Croatia, Mexico, Cameroon
Our opening match will be Brazil vs. Croatia is Sao Paulo. You knew Brazil was going to get it somewhat easy if they didn't get that second European team, and sure enough, that was the case. Should be fairly easy for the hosts to make it out of this group. The European team certainly could've been tougher, and Cameroon is the lowest-ranked side in the entire tournament. You never know what you're going to get from Mexico, though. They, of course, almost didn't get out of CONCACAF qualifying, then completely dominated New Zealand in the two-legged play-in. If that Mexican team shows up, look out. Overall, a very favorable draw for El Tri. I think the Mexico-Croatia winner joins Brazil in round two.
Group B: Spain, Netherlands, Chile, Australia
We knew one of the seeds was going to end up getting the Netherlands in its group and sure enough it was Spain. And, as fate would have it, the first match in this group is a rematch of the 2010 final (FIFA, do you still think not seeding the Dutch was a good idea?). The winner of that match is in the driver's seat to avoid the Round of 16 matchup with Brazil (and it would really be unfortunate if we end up with Brazil-Spain in the Round of 16 instead of the final). This is probably the third-best group in terms of quality of the four teams. Australia's no pushover, and Chile, especially playing in South America, is going to be a tough matchup for both of the favored sides. However, Spain and the Netherlands are simply too good. It's a shame that they have to play each other this early in the tournament.
Group C: Colombia, Greece, Cote d'Ivoire, Japan
Colombia perhaps got it the best of all the seeds. This group is certainly winnable for them, especially since they'll have the quasi-homefield advantage. This is also a great draw for Cote d'Ivoire. They're the strongest African squad, and they suffered being in the Group of Death in 2010, so I guess this is their reward. I fully expect them to advance, and I don't think winning the group is out of the question. Japan also might sneak in there. I didn't really consider the Japanese as a contender for round two until the draw came out and they ended up in a group where them finishing second doesn't seem like that far of a reach. I'll take Colombia and Cote d'Ivoire to advance, though.
Group D: Uruguay, Costa Rica, England, Italy
Group of Death, Part I. Good luck Costa Rica. There are three former World Cup champions in this group, and one of them isn't going to advance. First off, let's talk about the ridiculousness of "Pot X" and Italy ending up as the odd-man out when it came to the European teams. They should've been seeded. That's point No. 1. But then to take them and put them with the African teams, knowing that they were automatically going to face a South American seed? Time to rethink your seeding and draw procedures before Russia 2018. Anyway, there's no way Uruguay doesn't come out of this group, especially with the proximity of Uruguay to Brazil. Those fans are going to be loud! It really could come down to who wins that England-Italy game for the second spot, although how much the three beat Costa Rica by could definitely come into play. I've gotta think the Italians, after their terrible World Cup in 2010, then after getting screwed in the seeding, then getting screwed in the draw, will be pissed off enough to make everyone else in the group pay. Italy and Uruguay (the teams that played in the bronze medal match at the Confederations Cup) advance.
Group E: Switzerland, Ecuador, France, Honduras
The French should be saying a big "Merci" to FIFA (or, more specifically the French head of UEFA) for this draw. Because instead of being in Pot 2 like they should've been as the lowest-ranked European team, they end up in a group where Les Bleues advancing to round two doesn't seem that far-fetched. The Swiss shouldn't have been seeded, and this along with H, is probably the softest group of them all. Ecuador's going to win this group. There's no doubt in my mind about that. They couldn't have asked for a better draw. Honduras even has a shot to come out of Group E. I think that second spot goes to one of the two luckiest European teams in the field, though. Whoever wins the Switzerland-France game moves on. Since the French have a tendency to stink it up at the World Cup, though, I'll say it's Switzerland. After all, they did beat Spain in the opening game in 2010.
Group F: Argentina, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Iran, Nigeria
A dream draw for Argentina, a side that I wouldn't be surprised to win the whole thing. They even got a game near the border in Porto Alegre, so it's their dream draw not just in terms of teams, but in terms of where they're going to play (their opener's at Maracana). Nigeria seems to always end up in the same group as Argentina, but this time that could be a good thing. There's no prohibitive favorite for the second spot, which seems wide open. Bosnia's also got to like its chances in its World Cup debut. I don't think I'm going out on a limb to say that Bosnia's the second-best team in this group. In fact, I see them advancing alongside the Argentines.
Group G: Germany, Portugal, Ghana, United States
So much for those visions of grandeur for Team USA. Group of Death II is about as bad as it could've gotten for the U.S. Probably the only thing worse would've been Italy or Holland instead of Portugal. I'm not saying they can't or even that they won't advance. All I'm saying is that Group H would've been a lot more preferable to Group G. You do have the Klinsmann vs. Germany storyline and the Boateng brothers storyline, as well as Portugal's memories of losing to the U.S. in 2002, and the Americans' knowledge that it was Ghana that knocked them out of the previous two World Cups. Other than Germany being the favorite, this group is way too wide-open to make any sort of predictions. Although, that's usually the case with the Group of Death. I don't have that much faith in Portugal, so I'll say the second spot goes to the USA-Ghana winner. If the Americans lose that game, the World Cup could be over before it starts, especially with Germany looming in the final game of group play. Whoever finishes second in this group, though, has a decent-looking path to the semifinals. Better than even Germany's. So, I guess that's some kind of reward for coming out of the toughest draw.
Group H: Belgium, Algeria, Russia, South Korea
From arguably the best group in the entire tournament, to arguably the worst. Belgium's probably going to win the group by default. Once again, an undeserving seed gets a cupcake of a draw and virtual free pass to the second round. Algeria's not going to advance, so they're not even worth discussing. Russia could be interesting. Second place in this group (or even first) is very attainable, and that would set the Russians up on a nice path leading up to their hosting in 2018. South Korea's a dark horse though. Talk about a gift. They're capable of beating all three of these teams. It wouldn't surprise me at all to see the Koreans advance. Regardless, the two teams that move on lose to the Group G teams in the Round of 16. (And, for the record, if that dude pulls out Korea's ball first and the U.S. ends up in this group, they probably end up as group favorites. But so is the luck of the draw, especially when FIFA's involved.)
That's my initial take. There's still six months until the World Cup, though, so I don't want to get too involved in making picks right now beyond my first impressions of who I think might end up coming out. Way too much time left. Let the discussions begin, though. One thing's for sure, however. I can't wait until Brazil-Croatia on June 12.
Tuesday, December 3, 2013
We're Not Even at the Winter Meetings Yet
Is it just me, or has the Hot Stove heated up unusually early this year? The Winter Meetings, which are coming up this weekend, are usually where the first big moves are made. But not this year. This year, we've already had a ton of major trades and free agent signings. So many, in fact, that Robinson Cano is the only big dog remaining in free agency. And his re-signing with the Yankees doesn't seem as automatic now as it did at the end of the season.
Most of these moves have been trades, some of which were surprising, but each of which either filled a need or freed up a position for an already good team.
We'll start with the blockbuster that got this whole thing going--the Prince Fielder-Ian Kinsler trade. This one absolutely shocked me. Especially after the massive amount of money the Tigers gave Fielder as a free agent just two years ago. But they've evidently worn tired of his lack of ability to do anything in the postseason, especially for that price. My guess is the Tigers also got sick of Miguel Cabrera's being a not-very-good third baseman and they wanted to move him back to first. This was obviously their chance to do that. The Rangers, meanwhile, have had the same problem for the past couple years. They had too many middle infielders, and Jurickson Profar doesn't deserve to spend another day in the Minors. Instead of making Profar an outfielder (which is what I advocated they do), they deemed Kinsler expendable. They killed two birds with one stone, since Fielder gives them the left-handed power bat they were missing last season.
This trade works out well for both teams. The Tigers got a still very good second baseman who they can insert into the No. 2 spot in the lineup ahead of Cabrera. And losing Fiedler doesn't hurt that much, since they can now move Victor Martinez up to cleanup and Torii Hunter from second to fifth. Texas, though, improved greatly. They finally found a place for Profar, finally have a first baseman, and now have one of the best 3-4-5's in all of baseball with Beltre, Fielder and Rios.
Neither one of them was done, either. Detroit's about to lock up Joe Nathan as its new closer. If you watched the ALCS at all, you know that the Tigers' bullpen was their biggest problem. An established closer is a good start towards fixing the area that needed the most improvement on that team. They also got Drew Smyly, a lefty, into their previously all right-handed rotation by trading Doug Fister to the Nationals. Fister, at the same time, gives Washington arguably the deepest rotation in the game (Stephen Strasburg, Gio Gonzalez, Jordan Zimmermann, Fister, and Ross Detwiler). The Rangers also lost A.J. Pierzynski to Boston, but they're fine with Geovany Soto behind the plate.
In a minor deal, Texas shipped Craig Gentry to Oakland in a rare intra-division trade. The A's also got Orioles closer Jim Johnson in anticipation of Grant Balfour leaving and for some reason thought it was a good idea to give $22 million to Scott Kazmir. Chris Young also got out of Oakland, in a move that surprised nobody, seeing as he no longer had a role on that team. He's a Met now. Good move for both. A former All-Star, he's still got some value.
Another now former Tiger is Jhonny Peralta. He signed a massive free agent deal with the Cardinals that drew criticism from some, but really just serves as further proof that there's very little disincentive to do steroids. Peralta served his suspension, then got paid handsomely by somebody else. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. He joins a Cardinals team that's going to look vastly different. Chris Carpenter officially retired, which has very little actual impact. However, trading David Freese to the Angels for Peter Bourjos creates all kinds of possibilities for both teams. St. Louis is now able to move Matt Carpenter to third and insert Kolten Wong at second, and they're anticipating losing Carlos Beltran, which frees up right field. The assumption is that Allen Craig moves to right and Matt Adams becomes the permanent first baseman.
As for the Angels, they can get over their ridiculous obsession with letting Bourjos (who I think sucks) play center field and stop taking Mike Trout out of his best position. Freese is also a much better option at third base than Albert Callaspo or Maicer Izturis or whoever they had over there last season. We've said this before, but assuming everyone's healthy, the Angels have a decent-looking lineup in 2014: Trout-CF, Kendrick-2B, Pujols-DH, Hamilton-RF, Trumbo-1B, Freese-3B, Iannetta-C, Shuck-LF, Aybar-SS.
Now we move on to the team that everybody knew was going to make some major noise, despite its vow to lower the payroll, but still has a ton of question marks. I'm, of course, talking about the Yankees. They're still in limbo, waiting for Robinson Cano to decide and waiting to find out if A-Rod's suspension will be upheld and for how long. I agree with Yankee management that Cano isn't worth the money his people want. And 10-year contracts just aren't a good idea. Even with Seattle now in the picture, I think Cano will end up returning. I'll say $200 million for eight years. If he does leave, I can see the Yankees' interest in Omar Infante growing exponentially. And I've been an advocate of re-signing Mark Reynolds anyway, regardless of A-Rod's status.
The one other Yankee free agent signing that seemed inevitable was Brian McCann. Since, as they learned last year, a good catcher is an important thing to have. I also fully expect them to end up getting Tanaka, as soon as the new posting fee system is established. Whether or not Kuroda decides to return will determine if they need one or two more starters in addition to Sabathia, Nova and, presumably, Tanaka, and a healthy Michael Pineda could be the answer. That's why they got him two years ago in the first place.
But the big surprise, though, was today's acquisition of Jacoby Ellsbury. It's so reminiscent of when they plucked Johnny Damon away from Boston after the Red Sox won in 2004. On the surface, I don't think the Yankees needed Ellsbury. He's very similar to Brett Gardner. Doesn't change the fact that I'm happy to have him. And even happier he's not in Boston anymore. I didn't quite get the flirtation with Carlos Beltran, which I would imagine is over now, but the addition of Ellsbury gives them above-average defense in center and left, as well as in right when Ichiro's playing. They can also slot Alfonso Soriano as the semi-regular DH and avoid his glove.
And while I don't like the re-signing of Brendan Ryan as simply a Jeter insurance policy, and the Cano/A-Rod questions definitely need to be answered, the Yankees already look like they'll be a much-improved team in 2014. The bullpen still needs to be addressed, but the lineup is significantly better, especially if Cano and A-Rod are both back (my bet is Yes Cano, No A-Rod). For argument's sake, a Yankee lineup including Cano at second and Mark Reynolds at third would be: Ellsbury-CF, Jeter-SS, Cano-2B, Teixeira-1B, Soriano-DH, McCann-C, Reynolds-3B, Ichiro-RF, Gardner-LF.
This is all just the beginning. The Hot Stove is only going to get hotter as we get deeper into December. It doesn't quite match the thrill of the actual baseball season, but the baseball off-season can get pretty exciting in its own right. How long until pitchers and catchers?
Most of these moves have been trades, some of which were surprising, but each of which either filled a need or freed up a position for an already good team.
We'll start with the blockbuster that got this whole thing going--the Prince Fielder-Ian Kinsler trade. This one absolutely shocked me. Especially after the massive amount of money the Tigers gave Fielder as a free agent just two years ago. But they've evidently worn tired of his lack of ability to do anything in the postseason, especially for that price. My guess is the Tigers also got sick of Miguel Cabrera's being a not-very-good third baseman and they wanted to move him back to first. This was obviously their chance to do that. The Rangers, meanwhile, have had the same problem for the past couple years. They had too many middle infielders, and Jurickson Profar doesn't deserve to spend another day in the Minors. Instead of making Profar an outfielder (which is what I advocated they do), they deemed Kinsler expendable. They killed two birds with one stone, since Fielder gives them the left-handed power bat they were missing last season.
This trade works out well for both teams. The Tigers got a still very good second baseman who they can insert into the No. 2 spot in the lineup ahead of Cabrera. And losing Fiedler doesn't hurt that much, since they can now move Victor Martinez up to cleanup and Torii Hunter from second to fifth. Texas, though, improved greatly. They finally found a place for Profar, finally have a first baseman, and now have one of the best 3-4-5's in all of baseball with Beltre, Fielder and Rios.
Neither one of them was done, either. Detroit's about to lock up Joe Nathan as its new closer. If you watched the ALCS at all, you know that the Tigers' bullpen was their biggest problem. An established closer is a good start towards fixing the area that needed the most improvement on that team. They also got Drew Smyly, a lefty, into their previously all right-handed rotation by trading Doug Fister to the Nationals. Fister, at the same time, gives Washington arguably the deepest rotation in the game (Stephen Strasburg, Gio Gonzalez, Jordan Zimmermann, Fister, and Ross Detwiler). The Rangers also lost A.J. Pierzynski to Boston, but they're fine with Geovany Soto behind the plate.
In a minor deal, Texas shipped Craig Gentry to Oakland in a rare intra-division trade. The A's also got Orioles closer Jim Johnson in anticipation of Grant Balfour leaving and for some reason thought it was a good idea to give $22 million to Scott Kazmir. Chris Young also got out of Oakland, in a move that surprised nobody, seeing as he no longer had a role on that team. He's a Met now. Good move for both. A former All-Star, he's still got some value.
Another now former Tiger is Jhonny Peralta. He signed a massive free agent deal with the Cardinals that drew criticism from some, but really just serves as further proof that there's very little disincentive to do steroids. Peralta served his suspension, then got paid handsomely by somebody else. Don't hate the player. Hate the game. He joins a Cardinals team that's going to look vastly different. Chris Carpenter officially retired, which has very little actual impact. However, trading David Freese to the Angels for Peter Bourjos creates all kinds of possibilities for both teams. St. Louis is now able to move Matt Carpenter to third and insert Kolten Wong at second, and they're anticipating losing Carlos Beltran, which frees up right field. The assumption is that Allen Craig moves to right and Matt Adams becomes the permanent first baseman.
As for the Angels, they can get over their ridiculous obsession with letting Bourjos (who I think sucks) play center field and stop taking Mike Trout out of his best position. Freese is also a much better option at third base than Albert Callaspo or Maicer Izturis or whoever they had over there last season. We've said this before, but assuming everyone's healthy, the Angels have a decent-looking lineup in 2014: Trout-CF, Kendrick-2B, Pujols-DH, Hamilton-RF, Trumbo-1B, Freese-3B, Iannetta-C, Shuck-LF, Aybar-SS.
Now we move on to the team that everybody knew was going to make some major noise, despite its vow to lower the payroll, but still has a ton of question marks. I'm, of course, talking about the Yankees. They're still in limbo, waiting for Robinson Cano to decide and waiting to find out if A-Rod's suspension will be upheld and for how long. I agree with Yankee management that Cano isn't worth the money his people want. And 10-year contracts just aren't a good idea. Even with Seattle now in the picture, I think Cano will end up returning. I'll say $200 million for eight years. If he does leave, I can see the Yankees' interest in Omar Infante growing exponentially. And I've been an advocate of re-signing Mark Reynolds anyway, regardless of A-Rod's status.
The one other Yankee free agent signing that seemed inevitable was Brian McCann. Since, as they learned last year, a good catcher is an important thing to have. I also fully expect them to end up getting Tanaka, as soon as the new posting fee system is established. Whether or not Kuroda decides to return will determine if they need one or two more starters in addition to Sabathia, Nova and, presumably, Tanaka, and a healthy Michael Pineda could be the answer. That's why they got him two years ago in the first place.
But the big surprise, though, was today's acquisition of Jacoby Ellsbury. It's so reminiscent of when they plucked Johnny Damon away from Boston after the Red Sox won in 2004. On the surface, I don't think the Yankees needed Ellsbury. He's very similar to Brett Gardner. Doesn't change the fact that I'm happy to have him. And even happier he's not in Boston anymore. I didn't quite get the flirtation with Carlos Beltran, which I would imagine is over now, but the addition of Ellsbury gives them above-average defense in center and left, as well as in right when Ichiro's playing. They can also slot Alfonso Soriano as the semi-regular DH and avoid his glove.
And while I don't like the re-signing of Brendan Ryan as simply a Jeter insurance policy, and the Cano/A-Rod questions definitely need to be answered, the Yankees already look like they'll be a much-improved team in 2014. The bullpen still needs to be addressed, but the lineup is significantly better, especially if Cano and A-Rod are both back (my bet is Yes Cano, No A-Rod). For argument's sake, a Yankee lineup including Cano at second and Mark Reynolds at third would be: Ellsbury-CF, Jeter-SS, Cano-2B, Teixeira-1B, Soriano-DH, McCann-C, Reynolds-3B, Ichiro-RF, Gardner-LF.
This is all just the beginning. The Hot Stove is only going to get hotter as we get deeper into December. It doesn't quite match the thrill of the actual baseball season, but the baseball off-season can get pretty exciting in its own right. How long until pitchers and catchers?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)