I recently signed up for the NBC Sports Gold track & field season pass. It's actually not a bad deal. $70 for a year's worth of track & field, including, among other events, all of the Diamond League meets and all 10 days of the World Championships. A lot of this will also be shown on NBC or NBCSN. But not all of it. And not to the extent that it will be streamed.
This is nothing new. One of the best things about the times we live in is that if you try hard enough, you can watch pretty much anything online. There's a stream somewhere (either legal or illegal) of virtually any sporting event you can think of (although those pirated streams aren't always the clearest). This isn't even anything new for NBC. They've streamed every event of the last three Olympics live, often offering multiple streams of the same event at the same time.
And if you're a fan of a sport that doesn't get regular TV coverage, live streaming has been a Godsend. Thanks to live streaming, skiing fans have access to all of the major ski races. Same thing with cycling fans and the major stage races. And figure skating fans. And rugby fans. You get my drift. People have gone from not being able to watch these events at all (or, at most, an hour-long highlights package) to being able to watch them live from start to finish.
NBC Sports Gold was created with this in mind. It started with cycling, then expanded to include rugby, and now features track & field, as well. We're probably going to see more in the future. Swimming? Gymnastics? And, frankly, this is no different than MLB.tv or NBA League Pass, or even paying for NFL Sunday Ticket on your TV. Or ESPN3, which shows a ton of college games in a number of sports, for that matter.
It's also incredibly smart from a business perspective. There's a demand for these events, just not enough of one to justify TV air time for what would likely be low ratings. But there's a demand nonetheless. And if people are willing to pay to watch these events, it makes sense for the on-demand service. You also know what your audience is. If people are willing to pay for it, they really must be true fans.
How many colleges do this for their athletic events? How many sport-specific websites are there that offer similar services? Track & field already has three in RunnerSpace Plus, FloTrack Pro and USATF.tv. The only difference is that this one is backed by a network TV carrier. The one that has the rights to these major events. So now people can watch these major meets online in addition to all those smaller ones.
Broadcasters have been looking for a response to the cord-cutters who choose to not have cable in their homes and rely only on streaming services instead. This is NBC's way to appease those cord-cutters who still want to watch these events, but are unwilling to pay for a whole cable package. And I do think it's the start of a trend. Why wouldn't it be? It's smart business to offer people something they'd be willing to pay for and otherwise wouldn't get.
Of course, there is one major concern. A lot of the sports that have these streaming packages are already considered "niche" sports. Offering these events online and pay-per-view is great for the existing fans of that sport. But that's the only people you're appealing to. You're not going to attract the casual fan by offering these events only via an on-demand pay-per-view model. (This is the same criticism I have about ESPN3.)
That's a very valid worry. Because, as great as the increased exposure is, it's still not TV. Just look at the Final Four. The ratings for this year's Championship Game between North Carolina and Gonzaga were significantly higher than last year's classic between Villanova and North Carolina. Why? This year's game was on CBS. Last year's was on TBS. People love to knock broadcast TV, but it still blows cable out of the water when it comes to live sporting events...even if the game is exclusive on cable!
Same thing applies here. Even if these sports attract low TV ratings, they're still on TV. And, like it or not, TV is still a much more powerful medium than online streaming.
Now, some of these events are being offered both online and on TV. I watched a little bit of the Boston Marathon online today, and it looked like it was just a simulcast of NBCSN's TV coverage. But I bet there will be value in this package moving forward. My guess is that for the Diamond League and the World Championships, they'll show the world feed (which is much better than American TV coverage) live online, while the tape-delayed TV coverage will be the traditional commercial broadcast.
My guess is that the existence of the NBC Sports Gold track & field package will have very little impact on NBC/NBCSN's TV ratings for the Diamond League and World Championships. Just like the live event streaming has had no bearing on the network's Olympic ratings. I think, I hope, that will be the case. Because either they're on to something here or this is the beginning of the end of track & field on TV.
Monday, April 17, 2017
Sunday, April 16, 2017
My Campaign Promises
When I declared on my birthday that I'm now officially able to run for President, Jaden Daly (of "Daly Dose of Hoops" fame) said that I'd only get his vote if I were to fire Gary Bettman. That would probably require some sort of agreement with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, but I think it's one he could easily get on board with. Gary Bettman is not a good commissioner, and the sport of hockey would be much better off if someone else were running it. So I agreed to that campaign promise.
That also got me thinking as to what some of my other campaign promises would be. Here are some that I came up with:
That also got me thinking as to what some of my other campaign promises would be. Here are some that I came up with:
- It will no longer be an NBA rule that LeBron James is automatically in the Finals: The NBA is a star-driven league. I get that. But the LeBron in the Finals thing is absolutely ridiculous. Not because his team is always there, but because the East is so un-competitive that there's not even a team that has a chance at preventing them from getting there. Why do they even bother with a regular season and Eastern Conference playoffs? Just have the Cavs sit there and wait for the Western Conference winner.
- No more rules changes proposed by Bill Belichick: There seems to be an abundance of new rules proposed to the NFL's Competition Committee by the Patriots, and virtually all of them are accepted. Do we really need to give Belichick any more of an advantage than he already has, though?
- Baseball's "pace of play" initiatives will be repealed: Ever since Rob Manfred became commissioner, he's been obsessed with the pace of play, even though it's not actually a problem. All of his ideas to "speed up the game" haven't worked and need to go. And, I've said it before, and I'll say it again, the no-pitch intentional walk is just stupid.
- Rules that actually will make baseball games better to watch will be enacted: Instead of Manfred's stupid new rules, I'll put in some of my own to take their place (and actually improve the viewer experience). Those changes would include, but not be limited to, limiting trips to the mound and limiting throws to first. Both of those things take longer and are significantly more annoying than intentional walks.
- The NHL will be required to take an Olympic break every four years: It's really just ridiculous that they're not going to PyeongChang (which furthers the Bettman-needs-to-go conversation), but plan on coming back for Beijing. No. You can't pick and choose. You're going every four years no matter what. It's a much smaller scale, granted, but the WNBA has no problem with taking an Olympic break...which is the best thing for the sport.
- Any NCAA conference realignment must make geographic sense: I understand that it's not going to stop. Football programs are going to keep chasing dollar signs to larger conferences. But those conferences will be a manageable size and include teams that actually should be playing each other. No West Virginia in the Big 12 or Boston College in the ACC. (It would also be great if the conferences with numbers in their name actually corresponded to the number of teams in the conference).
- Update or do away with the Rooney Rule: Yes, I know this one sounds crazy. But the NFL's "Rooney Rule," which requires teams to interview a minority candidate for head coaching or GM vacancies is working counter to its original intention. Too many minority candidates are getting token interviews simply to satisfy the rule. I get the idea behind it, and there's no denying the Rooney Rule has opened a lot of doors. But it seems like an unnecessary requirement, especially since the purpose it originally served isn't as big of an issue anymore.
- Pitchers must wear double-digit numbers: Marcus Stroman, I'm talking to you. You're not a shortstop. You're a pitcher. And the trend he started is very disturbing. Seemingly every team has the single-digit pitcher now. If football can have a position-based numbering system, why can't baseball?
- Stop with everybody wearing 42 on Jackie Robinson Day: While I'm at it, please end this whole everyone wears No. 42 on April 15 thing! The whole point of numbers is to identify people. If they're all wearing the same number, you can't do that. Also, how much does it speak to his legacy to send a scrawny white middle reliever out there wearing is number?
- You make the team out of Spring Training, you get a big boy number: For the most part, this isn't an issue. But there are plenty of cases where the rookies that do make the team keep the ridiculously high numbers that their team gives them at the start of Spring Training. Unless you have a special reason for wearing No. 78 or No. 83, wear a real number! Anything in the 60s and higher is unacceptable without a valid reason.
- Do away with "Thursday Night Football": Players hate it, the color rush jerseys are disgusting, and the football is generally pretty bad. I'm not saying "Thursday Night Football" was a bad idea. We just don't need a full season of it. And we don't need a nationally-televised Jaguars-Titans game where the uniforms are blinding us. (This may actually happen after the contract expires at the end of this season.)
- Different hats for different occasions go away: Major League Baseball's answer to color rush jerseys is a different hat for every day of the week. I get it, this is an attempt by both MLB and New Era to make more money (which they do very successfully, seeing as suckers still buy these things at $35 a pop), but it's too much. Memorial Day hats, Fourth of July hats, All-Star batting practice hats, Spring Training hats. The only ones that can stay are the World Series hats. All-Star hats are OK, too, as long as it's just the player's regular hat with an All-Star Game logo on the side instead of those monstrosities they've made them wear the last couple years. (Also, am I the only one who doesn't like the new thing with the New Era logo on the left and whatever specialty logo on the right?)
So there you have it, some of my campaign promises for when I rule the world of sports (pending my election of course). I'm sure some of them will appeal to some and not others. Likewise, I'm sure there are plenty more that I could've come up with. But this is a start. And I think if we implemented at least some of them, everyone would be a lot happier.
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Stanley Cup Playoff Preview
A year after none of the Canadian teams qualified for the Stanley Cup Playoffs, we've got five of the seven in the field this year. I think it's safe to say that last season was more a blip on the radar than a sign of anything that will be long-term. In fact, the Eastern Conference standings almost entirely flipped this year. Of last year's playoff teams, only the Capitals, Penguins and Rangers return, and every Eastern Conference team except for the Devils, Sabres and Hurricanes has made the playoffs in the last two seasons.
Washington and Pittsburgh, of course, are the two marquee franchises in the NHL at the moment. The Capitals won their second consecutive President's Trophy, and the Penguins are the defending champions. They have to enter the playoffs as the two biggest favorites to win the Cup, and not just because they're the two best teams in the league. You can't count Chicago out either. This is, after all, an odd year, and the Blackhawks win the Cup in odd years. They had the best record in the West and you know they're eager to make up for last year's first-round exit.
Most of the attention this year has been focused on the East, and rightfully so, but that doesn't mean whoever wins the Eastern Conference is guaranteed to skate with the Cup. Nor is Chicago guaranteed to win the West. There are a number of teams that can give the Blackhawks a challenge, starting with the Ducks, but also including the defending conference champion Sharks and a St. Louis team that knocked the Blackhawks out last season.
In the East, you know it's going to be a bloodbath in the first two rounds on the Metropolitan side of the bracket. My dissatisfaction with the current playoff system is well-known, and the fact that Pittsburgh, the second-best team in the league, has to play Columbus (third-best) and Washington (President's Trophy winners) just to get to the conference finals is ridiculous. And you know who could benefit? The Rangers-Canadiens winner.
Canadiens-Rangers: The Rangers are perhaps the first team in history that wanted to finish lower in its division to improve its playoff position. Well, they got exactly what they wanted, and it's a much easier route to the Eastern Conference Final (which I don't think would surprise anybody). Montreal is definitely a better matchup than either Washington or Pittsburgh, but the Canadiens aren't exactly going to be easy. In fact, Montreal won all three games during the regular season. They've got Carey Price, the memory of missing the playoffs last season, and the memory of the 2014 Eastern Conference Final. But. The Rangers had the best road record in hockey and worked themselves into a more favorable matchup. This will be a competitive series with a number of one-goal games, but I do see the Rangers doing what they need to do to win it. Rangers in six.
Senators-Bruins: This series exposes the other major flaw of the playoff format. Either Pittsburgh or Columbus will definitely be eliminated, while either Ottawa or Boston is guaranteed to advance (and get home ice in the second round if the Rangers win). I think this might end up being the tightest of the eight first-round series. Ottawa and Boston were very evenly matched all season long, with the Senators barely finishing ahead and earning home ice for this series. Although, much like the Rangers, the Bruins caught a huge break when Toronto lost on the last day of the season. They got the Senators instead of the Capitals, and I see them taking full advantage. A Bruins win guarantees an all-Original Six second round series. Bruins in seven.
Capitals-Maple Leafs: NBC wanted this matchup, but they might be the only ones. It's great to see Toronto back in the playoffs, but it looks like it'll be a short stay for Auston Matthews and Co. Do I think Washington is going to win the Stanley Cup? No. What makes them a great regular season team is why they're vulnerable in the playoffs. They become easier to scout the longer a best-of-seven goes. However, with that being said, they're significantly better than Toronto. Had the Leafs beaten Columbus in the final game, we might be talking about them potentially reaching the second round of the playoffs for the first time since 2004 (that's pre-Lockout 1.0). As it is, they'll be lucky to win a game in their first trip to the postseason in four years. Capitals in five.
Penguins-Blue Jackets: Did any team get screwed by the playoff system more than Columbus? This team has the talent to be playing into June. But there's no way they're getting past both of the top two teams in the league. Beating the Penguins is going to be a very tall order. Pittsburgh is loaded, and they should be healthy for the playoffs. And, of course, let's not forget the Penguins are the defending champions. This might've been the worst possible first-round assignment for the Penguins, but it's not exactly as if Columbus considers this matchup easy for them. Sergei Bobrovsky is going to be the key. For the Blue Jackets to win a playoff series for the first time in their history, he'll need to come up big. Pittsburgh has way too many weapons, though. I'm not sure he can stop them all. Penguins in six.
Blackhawks-Predators: Nashville was a very popular Stanley Cup pick in the preseason. They had an up-and-down season, but none of that matters now. Because the Predators are a very dangerous team. One that had to travel back-and-forth to California during the playoffs twice last year, yet still was one win away from the Conference Final. It's definitely there. It might not be enough for the Blackhawks, though. Chicago is the most playoff-tested team of the 16 remaining. More importantly, the Blackhawks know how to win in April and May. I don't see that changing as long as Kane and Toews are around, either. As long as they get solid goaltending, we're probably looking at another deep run for the San Francisco Giants of hockey. Blackhawks in six.
Wild-Blues: When these two met in the first round two years ago, Minnesota upset the top-seeded Blues. St. Louis, meanwhile, finally broke through and got to the Conference Final last year. Do they have another deep run in them? That I'm not so sure of. The Wild were one of the most consistent teams in the NHL all season. And the funny thing is nobody is talking about them. They finished second in the Central for a reason, though, and I think that home ice advantage will end up being a big factor in this series. One of the reasons the NHL likes this stupid format is because they get these great playoff battles between division rivals. This series will be no exception. I'll be very surprised if it doesn't go seven, where Minnesota having the home game will make a huge difference. Wild in seven.
Ducks-Flames: If anybody in the West has a chance at knocking off Chicago, my money's on Anaheim. The Ducks had to fight Edmonton literally down to the wire for the division title, but they did end up securing their fourth straight division crown. They've got nothing to show for it, though. They've lost a Game 7 four years in a row, including three straight home Game 7 losses. Understandably, they Ducks have developed a bit of a reputation for not being able to finish the deal. Calgary's a very good young team that's really fun to watch. But we might be a year or two away from the Alberta clubs bringing us back to the late 80s. As for 2017, the Ducks are simply too good for the Flames. That is, unless it gets to a Game 7, in which case Anaheim could be in trouble. Ducks in six.
Oilers-Sharks: I'm really looking forward to this series. It should be a fun one. Conor McDavid finally gets the playoff stage. How will he handle it? Can he bring the Oilers back to the Gretzky-Messier Glory Days? Well, we'll find out quickly against a Sharks team that finally overcame its playoff demons and reached the Stanley Cup Final last season. Was that an anomaly or have those demons been permanently exorcised? Either way, I do like San Jose in this series. Once you get there, you feel that urge to get back. And San Jose is perfectly equipped to do just that. At the very least, the playoff-tested Sharks should be able to get by a young Oilers team returning to the postseason for the first time since Edmonton's Final run in 2006. I can guarantee that it won't take 11 years for them to get back to the playoffs again. Sharks in six.
As for the really early Final pick, I'd be stupid to go against the Blackhawks and their odd-year mojo (especially after the Cubs' win). I'm gonna go with Chicago over Pittsburgh in the Stanley Cup Final. But this is the Stanley Cup Playoffs. Anything can happen. That's why the next two months are gonna be so much fun.
Monday, April 10, 2017
Why a Tri-Bid?
The United States, Mexico and Canada formally announced their tri-bid for the 2026 World Cup today. This was not a surprise to anyone. It's been expected for quite some time. It's also the odds-on favorite to host the first expanded 48-team World Cup.
Here's my question, though--Why is it a tri-bid? Especially since 75 percent of the tournament is going to be in the United States. The expanded field and additional games do limit the number of countries that will be able to host moving forward, so joint bids and co-hosts will likely become the norm. But the United States is not a country that needs to co-host. In fact, it's one of the few that can handle the larger tournament pretty easily.
I can somewhat understand wanting to include Mexico and being able to use Azteca for some of the games, but where else in Mexico would you play? And where in Canada? They drew a ton of criticism for using turf during the 2015 Women's World Cup, and they'd almost certainly have to use natural grass in the men's World Cup. There's also the question of where in Canada you'd play. The Blue Jays will have installed grass in SkyDome by then, but will they make the stadium available for the World Cup? And will they let the soccer players tear up their grass? The Canadian National Team plays most of its home games at BMO Field in Toronto, but is that big enough?
We're also talking about a huge area. The United States itself is big enough. Now you're adding Canada and Mexico to the equation. The organizers of the bid have acknowledged this little problem and suggested that they'd have to break the games up regionally, which makes complete sense. In fact, assuming there are 12 stadiums in the U.S. and two each in Canada and Mexico, they could have each of the 16 groups play all of the group games in the same stadium, with travel only coming into play once the knockout round begins.
If there are 16 stadiums in use, each would host five games--three in group play, one in the round of 32, and another knockout round game. They'd have to figure out the groups so that each of the hosts can play all of their games in their own country, but I'd break it down like this: Canada-Toronto, Montreal; Mexico-Mexico City, Guadalajara; United States-Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington.
Since this will be the first World Cup with 48 teams, it will also be the first with the new qualifying format. More on that in a second, but one of the more significant parts of the new qualifying system is that the host country's automatic bid will come out of their federation's allotment. All three hosts understandably want an automatic bid, which creates a little bit of a problem in that it essentially takes away all three of the additional spots that CONCACAF was just given (although the chances that the U.S. and Mexico would qualify anyway, especially with six teams coming out of the region now, you'd figure are pretty high).
CONCACAF going from three bids to six seemed likely all along. That's the number that makes the most sense. Of course, that would mean the end of the Hex, although, if the three North American teams do co-host, we might see the Hex get one last hurrah in 2024-25. Moving forward, though, it doesn't make sense to have a final qualifying round of six when you've got six teams advancing. What seems the most logical to me is a 10-team final round split into two groups of five, with the top three in each qualifying.
Nothing is going to change in South American qualifying. They only have 10 teams, so they weren't going to get many more berths than their current 4.5. With the number of South American qualifiers now at six, a full 60 percent of the membership will play in the World Cup. Africa will have nine, so I'd figure they'll have nine qualifying groups with the winners advancing. Asia's bids have been increased to eight. They already have their qualifiers coming out of two final groups, so I can see those final groups simply becoming bigger. And Oceania (meaning New Zealand) is finally going to get an automatic bid, which is long overdue.
Europe is where things get interesting. UEFA's bids only increased from 13 to 16. The rationale for that makes total sense, though. For the UEFA President, it was more important to keep the European teams separated than to have more in the tournament. Since there will be 16 groups, 16 European teams made perfect sense. One in each group, guaranteeing none can play each other prior to the knockout round. And it actually makes European qualifying pretty easy, too. Eight groups, with the top two advancing.
My favorite feature of the new World Cup qualifying system, though, is the playoff tournament. This replaces those inter-confederation playoffs at the end of the qualifying window. Six teams, one from each region except Europe, plus an extra one from the host confederation (which loses one of its bids to the host country). Two get seeded based on world rankings and play the winners of games between the four unseeded teams. The winners of those two games qualify. I love it.
Who would qualify for that playoff tournament is still a little foggy, though. FIFA said it's based on world ranking, but I think it should be based on how they fared in their confederation's qualifying. Meaning I want to see the seventh-place team from CONMEBOL and the second-place team from Oceania. They deserve the second chance more than the team that struggled in qualifying, but has a higher ranking.
Regardless of how it's set up, the playoff tournament is going to add a whole new layer of intrigue to the 2026 World Cup, which will almost certainly be tri-hosted by the three North American countries. It's really the only logical choice to host the first 48-team tournament.
Here's my question, though--Why is it a tri-bid? Especially since 75 percent of the tournament is going to be in the United States. The expanded field and additional games do limit the number of countries that will be able to host moving forward, so joint bids and co-hosts will likely become the norm. But the United States is not a country that needs to co-host. In fact, it's one of the few that can handle the larger tournament pretty easily.
I can somewhat understand wanting to include Mexico and being able to use Azteca for some of the games, but where else in Mexico would you play? And where in Canada? They drew a ton of criticism for using turf during the 2015 Women's World Cup, and they'd almost certainly have to use natural grass in the men's World Cup. There's also the question of where in Canada you'd play. The Blue Jays will have installed grass in SkyDome by then, but will they make the stadium available for the World Cup? And will they let the soccer players tear up their grass? The Canadian National Team plays most of its home games at BMO Field in Toronto, but is that big enough?
We're also talking about a huge area. The United States itself is big enough. Now you're adding Canada and Mexico to the equation. The organizers of the bid have acknowledged this little problem and suggested that they'd have to break the games up regionally, which makes complete sense. In fact, assuming there are 12 stadiums in the U.S. and two each in Canada and Mexico, they could have each of the 16 groups play all of the group games in the same stadium, with travel only coming into play once the knockout round begins.
If there are 16 stadiums in use, each would host five games--three in group play, one in the round of 32, and another knockout round game. They'd have to figure out the groups so that each of the hosts can play all of their games in their own country, but I'd break it down like this: Canada-Toronto, Montreal; Mexico-Mexico City, Guadalajara; United States-Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, Phoenix, Houston, Dallas, Chicago, Atlanta, New York, Boston, Philadelphia, Washington.
Since this will be the first World Cup with 48 teams, it will also be the first with the new qualifying format. More on that in a second, but one of the more significant parts of the new qualifying system is that the host country's automatic bid will come out of their federation's allotment. All three hosts understandably want an automatic bid, which creates a little bit of a problem in that it essentially takes away all three of the additional spots that CONCACAF was just given (although the chances that the U.S. and Mexico would qualify anyway, especially with six teams coming out of the region now, you'd figure are pretty high).
CONCACAF going from three bids to six seemed likely all along. That's the number that makes the most sense. Of course, that would mean the end of the Hex, although, if the three North American teams do co-host, we might see the Hex get one last hurrah in 2024-25. Moving forward, though, it doesn't make sense to have a final qualifying round of six when you've got six teams advancing. What seems the most logical to me is a 10-team final round split into two groups of five, with the top three in each qualifying.
Nothing is going to change in South American qualifying. They only have 10 teams, so they weren't going to get many more berths than their current 4.5. With the number of South American qualifiers now at six, a full 60 percent of the membership will play in the World Cup. Africa will have nine, so I'd figure they'll have nine qualifying groups with the winners advancing. Asia's bids have been increased to eight. They already have their qualifiers coming out of two final groups, so I can see those final groups simply becoming bigger. And Oceania (meaning New Zealand) is finally going to get an automatic bid, which is long overdue.
Europe is where things get interesting. UEFA's bids only increased from 13 to 16. The rationale for that makes total sense, though. For the UEFA President, it was more important to keep the European teams separated than to have more in the tournament. Since there will be 16 groups, 16 European teams made perfect sense. One in each group, guaranteeing none can play each other prior to the knockout round. And it actually makes European qualifying pretty easy, too. Eight groups, with the top two advancing.
My favorite feature of the new World Cup qualifying system, though, is the playoff tournament. This replaces those inter-confederation playoffs at the end of the qualifying window. Six teams, one from each region except Europe, plus an extra one from the host confederation (which loses one of its bids to the host country). Two get seeded based on world rankings and play the winners of games between the four unseeded teams. The winners of those two games qualify. I love it.
Who would qualify for that playoff tournament is still a little foggy, though. FIFA said it's based on world ranking, but I think it should be based on how they fared in their confederation's qualifying. Meaning I want to see the seventh-place team from CONMEBOL and the second-place team from Oceania. They deserve the second chance more than the team that struggled in qualifying, but has a higher ranking.
Regardless of how it's set up, the playoff tournament is going to add a whole new layer of intrigue to the 2026 World Cup, which will almost certainly be tri-hosted by the three North American countries. It's really the only logical choice to host the first 48-team tournament.
Saturday, April 8, 2017
An American Shocker
Wichita State is moving from the Missouri Valley Conference to the American next season. It's a great move for the Shockers, who've been NCAA Tournament regulars over the past few years, but have been frequently underseeded, including this season when they were inexplicably given a 10-seed. Even when they were undefeated and got a No. 1 seed a few years ago, they had to play Kentucky (which went to the National Championship Game) in the second round.
Make no mistake. This is purely a basketball move. Whereas most changes in conference affiliation over the past 10 years have been with football in mind, this one is all about basketball. Wichita State is doing this because of basketball, and it's because of basketball that they're able to do it.
They were stuck in an incredibly awkward situation where they were the top dog in a mid-major league (one of the better ones, I might add), which usually ended up "hurting" them in the long run. Their RPI wasn't very strong because of their league, and they couldn't get any games against big-time opponents because nobody wanted to play them. It was an incredible catch-22, and you have to think it's one of the primary reasons why Wichita State, despite a Final Four run in 2013 and a No. 1 seed a year later, was so dramatically underseeded. Simply put, there was no longer any benefit to being in the Missouri Valley Conference.
For them, going to the American makes a lot of sense. As we all know, the American is still a fairly young conference, and it was only formed when the Big East split in two. It's also a conference that fears for its stability. UConn is their marquee program, but they don't want to be there. Houston is chomping at the bit to join the Big 12, and Cincinnati would likely prefer to be elsewhere, too. If any of those teams were to leave, Wichita State would immediately become the American's top dog. And since they don't have football, there's no chance they'd try to leave.
But for a program like Wichita State, the American is an absolute upgrade. Instead of playing home-and-homes with Bradley, Drake and Loyola Chicago, now they'll be playing conference games against teams like UConn and Cincinnati and SMU. The American isn't the strongest of leagues. But it has been a multi-bid league every year of its existence. UConn's won a National Championship, SMU has become a big time program, and Central Florida made the semifinals of the NIT this season. The Shockers' strength of schedule is immediately going to go up. And now they're in a position where they don't have to worry about needing to win the league to get in.
This is obviously a blow to the Missouri Valley Conference. They lost Creighton to the Big East during the last round of conference realignment, and now they lose their other headliner to the American. Now the top programs in the Missouri Valley, which has such a great history, are probably Northern Iowa and Illinois State. It's still going to be a good, very competitive mid-major conference. But the days of the Missouri Valley regularly being in the mix for multiple at-large bids appear to be over.
I'm not saying the MVC is destined to become a one-bid league forever. It just seems like the at-large bids will be far less frequent. And they'll also be looking at 13- or 14- or maybe even 15-seeds now. Will they recover? Probably. But the loss of the best team is certainly a blow.
How long the MVC is down really might depend on what school replaces Wichita State. Not counting Wichita State, there are currently nine schools in the MVC, which is a number they can easily make-do with in 2017-18 if they need to. But you've gotta figure they're going to move swiftly trying to find a new member that may not be of Wichita State's caliber, but will hopefully be close enough. And with the MVC AD's set to meet in St. Louis this weekend, you'd have to think that's what they're going to talk about.
The two schools I've heard mentioned as their potential targets are Valparaiso and Murray State. Murray State has been one of the top programs in the Ohio Valley Conference for the last couple of years, but isn't remotely close to the brand name Valparaiso is. To me it's a no-brainer for both the league and the program that Valparaiso should be Wichita State's replacement in the Missouri Valley Conference.
Valparaiso has its own NCAA Tournament history, so it would give the MVC another relevant name. It's also one that would be competitive in men's basketball, which I think is equally important when you're losing your best team. Likewise, they're a fit geographically. Valpo is in Indiana, but it's close to Chicago, which makes flying in very easy for the schools that aren't close enough to bus.
Most importantly, though, for Valparaiso, going from the Horizon League to the Missouri Valley would be an upgrade. Wichita State got out because being in the MVC was no longer benefiting them. It's the exact opposite for Valpo. Moving to the MVC would be a great benefit to their program.
Don't be surprised when the Missouri Valley Conference announces its adding Valparaiso. It makes total sense. And it's a perfect fit. Valpo needs the Missouri Valley as much as the Missouri Valley needs Valpo. Just like Wichita State and the American needed each other.
Make no mistake. This is purely a basketball move. Whereas most changes in conference affiliation over the past 10 years have been with football in mind, this one is all about basketball. Wichita State is doing this because of basketball, and it's because of basketball that they're able to do it.
They were stuck in an incredibly awkward situation where they were the top dog in a mid-major league (one of the better ones, I might add), which usually ended up "hurting" them in the long run. Their RPI wasn't very strong because of their league, and they couldn't get any games against big-time opponents because nobody wanted to play them. It was an incredible catch-22, and you have to think it's one of the primary reasons why Wichita State, despite a Final Four run in 2013 and a No. 1 seed a year later, was so dramatically underseeded. Simply put, there was no longer any benefit to being in the Missouri Valley Conference.
For them, going to the American makes a lot of sense. As we all know, the American is still a fairly young conference, and it was only formed when the Big East split in two. It's also a conference that fears for its stability. UConn is their marquee program, but they don't want to be there. Houston is chomping at the bit to join the Big 12, and Cincinnati would likely prefer to be elsewhere, too. If any of those teams were to leave, Wichita State would immediately become the American's top dog. And since they don't have football, there's no chance they'd try to leave.
But for a program like Wichita State, the American is an absolute upgrade. Instead of playing home-and-homes with Bradley, Drake and Loyola Chicago, now they'll be playing conference games against teams like UConn and Cincinnati and SMU. The American isn't the strongest of leagues. But it has been a multi-bid league every year of its existence. UConn's won a National Championship, SMU has become a big time program, and Central Florida made the semifinals of the NIT this season. The Shockers' strength of schedule is immediately going to go up. And now they're in a position where they don't have to worry about needing to win the league to get in.
This is obviously a blow to the Missouri Valley Conference. They lost Creighton to the Big East during the last round of conference realignment, and now they lose their other headliner to the American. Now the top programs in the Missouri Valley, which has such a great history, are probably Northern Iowa and Illinois State. It's still going to be a good, very competitive mid-major conference. But the days of the Missouri Valley regularly being in the mix for multiple at-large bids appear to be over.
I'm not saying the MVC is destined to become a one-bid league forever. It just seems like the at-large bids will be far less frequent. And they'll also be looking at 13- or 14- or maybe even 15-seeds now. Will they recover? Probably. But the loss of the best team is certainly a blow.
How long the MVC is down really might depend on what school replaces Wichita State. Not counting Wichita State, there are currently nine schools in the MVC, which is a number they can easily make-do with in 2017-18 if they need to. But you've gotta figure they're going to move swiftly trying to find a new member that may not be of Wichita State's caliber, but will hopefully be close enough. And with the MVC AD's set to meet in St. Louis this weekend, you'd have to think that's what they're going to talk about.
The two schools I've heard mentioned as their potential targets are Valparaiso and Murray State. Murray State has been one of the top programs in the Ohio Valley Conference for the last couple of years, but isn't remotely close to the brand name Valparaiso is. To me it's a no-brainer for both the league and the program that Valparaiso should be Wichita State's replacement in the Missouri Valley Conference.
Valparaiso has its own NCAA Tournament history, so it would give the MVC another relevant name. It's also one that would be competitive in men's basketball, which I think is equally important when you're losing your best team. Likewise, they're a fit geographically. Valpo is in Indiana, but it's close to Chicago, which makes flying in very easy for the schools that aren't close enough to bus.
Most importantly, though, for Valparaiso, going from the Horizon League to the Missouri Valley would be an upgrade. Wichita State got out because being in the MVC was no longer benefiting them. It's the exact opposite for Valpo. Moving to the MVC would be a great benefit to their program.
Don't be surprised when the Missouri Valley Conference announces its adding Valparaiso. It makes total sense. And it's a perfect fit. Valpo needs the Missouri Valley as much as the Missouri Valley needs Valpo. Just like Wichita State and the American needed each other.
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
No NHL In Korea
A lot of stuff has happened in the last couple days, huh? UConn's winning streak came to an end in a ridiculous game! The Carolinas (North and South) won NCAA basketball championships. Tony Romo was released by the Cowboys and immediately hired by CBS as their lead analyst, despite having no broadcasting experience.
And, perhaps most significantly, the NHL continued to show how completely tone deaf it is by announcing they weren't going to the PyeongChang Olympics (saying that the matter is "closed") ON THE SAME DAY they announced plans to play two exhibition games in China next season. This, despite the fact that Gary Bettman and the owners seem to be the ONLY people that don't want NHL players participating.
This stance appears to be only for 2018. The NHL fully intends on participating in the 2022 Games in Beijing. Because they want the exposure of the potentially lucrative Chinese market. They don't see the same value in going to Korea, and they don't want to suspend the season so that their players can go to the Olympics, play in the middle of the night and potentially get hurt if there's nothing in it for them.
Unfortunately, the only people who didn't NHL players participating for the sixth consecutive Olympics were the only ones that held any power in the situation. All they see is the almighty dollar. What the players want, what the fans want and what's good for the game evidently don't matter. So, as a result, the men's Olympic hockey tournament will go from the marquee event to little more than a glorified World Championships (which take place during the Stanley Cup Playoffs, so most Americans and Canadians don't even realize they're happening most of the time). And we get robbed of seeing the best against the best on the biggest stage that sports can offer.
There are a lot of long term repercussions of the NHL's decision not to participate. The IOC and IIHF both warned the NHL that if they don't go to PyeongChang, they might not be welcome in Beijing. In a way, I really hope they aren't bluffing about that. They said that the NHL can't "pick and choose" which Olympics it attends, and the only way to get that point across would be to say "thanks, but no thanks" when it comes to Beijing.
The NHL owners are the only ones with any power here. I'd love to see some push back, if only because they aren't acting in anyone's best interest (including their own). Their relationships with the IOC and IIHF are strained, and you can bet NBC and CBC (which are both NHL and Olympic broadcasters) aren't too happy either.
What they've made abundantly clear here, though, is that they don't view the players as equal partners. Not even close. The players want to play. The owners know that. They just don't care. Months ago, the owners offered the players the opportunity to go to PyeongChang in exchange for a two-year extension of the CBA. They didn't take it, arguing (rightfully so) that they shouldn't have to make any concessions to play. Now, there's no chance the players won't opt out of the current CBA when they can in 2020. And, seeing as this is the NHL, you know that when they do, Lockout 3.0 is inevitable (I guess not playing games then is OK?). How could it not be? The owners clearly don't care about what the players want, so why should the players care about what the owners want?
Some of the players still don't care. Even after the NHL's announcement, Alex Ovechkin said he still plans on going to Korea and playing for Russia, and he has the blessing of Capitals owner Ted Leonisis to do so. How many other players will defy the league and play in the Olympics anyway? And how many owners will be as understanding as Leonisis?
One of the articles I read today made a very interesting prediction. It suggested that a number of big-name free agents may take one-year deals somewhere in Europe so that they can play in PyeongChang, only to return to the NHL in 2018-19. Considering the number of players that have already jumped to the KHL or other European leagues, that's not too far-fetched. After all, that's what a lot of players did during the 2004-05 lockout (and some stayed there).
Assuming some sort of resolution isn't reached (which I still think there can be, despite the NHL's drawing a line in the sand), the U.S. and Canada will be looking towards those European-based pros when constructing their 2018 Olympic rosters. It would also make Russia, which would have former NHL All-Stars Ilya Kovalchuk and Pavel Datsyuk (both playing in the KHL), among others, available, the odds-on favorites.
Meanwhile, instead of seeing Auston Matthews and Johnny Gaudreau wearing Red, White and Blue on the world's biggest sporting stage, they'll continue toiling away North of the Border. Speaking of North of the Border, instead of Sidney Crosby and Carey Price and 21 other NHL All-Stars wearing the Maple Leaf (for Canada, not Toronto) on their chest, we'll get to see a bunch of career minor leaguers and European pros.
I'm glad the NHL owners got what they wanted out of this Olympic "deal." Because nobody else did. Instead of using the platform to promote the sport on a global stage, they're going to be in direct competition with the Olympics. Makes total sense to me. Another stroke of brilliance by the NHL's powers that be.
And, perhaps most significantly, the NHL continued to show how completely tone deaf it is by announcing they weren't going to the PyeongChang Olympics (saying that the matter is "closed") ON THE SAME DAY they announced plans to play two exhibition games in China next season. This, despite the fact that Gary Bettman and the owners seem to be the ONLY people that don't want NHL players participating.
This stance appears to be only for 2018. The NHL fully intends on participating in the 2022 Games in Beijing. Because they want the exposure of the potentially lucrative Chinese market. They don't see the same value in going to Korea, and they don't want to suspend the season so that their players can go to the Olympics, play in the middle of the night and potentially get hurt if there's nothing in it for them.
Unfortunately, the only people who didn't NHL players participating for the sixth consecutive Olympics were the only ones that held any power in the situation. All they see is the almighty dollar. What the players want, what the fans want and what's good for the game evidently don't matter. So, as a result, the men's Olympic hockey tournament will go from the marquee event to little more than a glorified World Championships (which take place during the Stanley Cup Playoffs, so most Americans and Canadians don't even realize they're happening most of the time). And we get robbed of seeing the best against the best on the biggest stage that sports can offer.
There are a lot of long term repercussions of the NHL's decision not to participate. The IOC and IIHF both warned the NHL that if they don't go to PyeongChang, they might not be welcome in Beijing. In a way, I really hope they aren't bluffing about that. They said that the NHL can't "pick and choose" which Olympics it attends, and the only way to get that point across would be to say "thanks, but no thanks" when it comes to Beijing.
The NHL owners are the only ones with any power here. I'd love to see some push back, if only because they aren't acting in anyone's best interest (including their own). Their relationships with the IOC and IIHF are strained, and you can bet NBC and CBC (which are both NHL and Olympic broadcasters) aren't too happy either.
What they've made abundantly clear here, though, is that they don't view the players as equal partners. Not even close. The players want to play. The owners know that. They just don't care. Months ago, the owners offered the players the opportunity to go to PyeongChang in exchange for a two-year extension of the CBA. They didn't take it, arguing (rightfully so) that they shouldn't have to make any concessions to play. Now, there's no chance the players won't opt out of the current CBA when they can in 2020. And, seeing as this is the NHL, you know that when they do, Lockout 3.0 is inevitable (I guess not playing games then is OK?). How could it not be? The owners clearly don't care about what the players want, so why should the players care about what the owners want?
Some of the players still don't care. Even after the NHL's announcement, Alex Ovechkin said he still plans on going to Korea and playing for Russia, and he has the blessing of Capitals owner Ted Leonisis to do so. How many other players will defy the league and play in the Olympics anyway? And how many owners will be as understanding as Leonisis?
One of the articles I read today made a very interesting prediction. It suggested that a number of big-name free agents may take one-year deals somewhere in Europe so that they can play in PyeongChang, only to return to the NHL in 2018-19. Considering the number of players that have already jumped to the KHL or other European leagues, that's not too far-fetched. After all, that's what a lot of players did during the 2004-05 lockout (and some stayed there).
Assuming some sort of resolution isn't reached (which I still think there can be, despite the NHL's drawing a line in the sand), the U.S. and Canada will be looking towards those European-based pros when constructing their 2018 Olympic rosters. It would also make Russia, which would have former NHL All-Stars Ilya Kovalchuk and Pavel Datsyuk (both playing in the KHL), among others, available, the odds-on favorites.
Meanwhile, instead of seeing Auston Matthews and Johnny Gaudreau wearing Red, White and Blue on the world's biggest sporting stage, they'll continue toiling away North of the Border. Speaking of North of the Border, instead of Sidney Crosby and Carey Price and 21 other NHL All-Stars wearing the Maple Leaf (for Canada, not Toronto) on their chest, we'll get to see a bunch of career minor leaguers and European pros.
I'm glad the NHL owners got what they wanted out of this Olympic "deal." Because nobody else did. Instead of using the platform to promote the sport on a global stage, they're going to be in direct competition with the Olympics. Makes total sense to me. Another stroke of brilliance by the NHL's powers that be.
Sunday, April 2, 2017
Baseball Preview (NL West)
Opening Day is here! After nearly five months without Major League Baseball (save for that wonderful diversion known as the World Baseball Classic), it's back. And we're going to have at least one game pretty much every day from now until October.
But before we put our Caps On, it's time to finish up the baseball preview. As usual, we end with Part VI, the NL West. And as usual, the Dodgers are the clear favorites in the NL West. I really don't see that changing anytime soon. This team is loaded, and they have a singular mission of winning the World Series. Until that happens, expect to see them losing in the playoffs.
The Giants are probably the only team in the NL West that can even give the Dodgers any sort of a challenge. The Rockies and Diamondbacks both have some quality pieces, but nowhere near enough of them. And Padres are just a mess. San Diego's only pro team enters about year 12 of its 10-year rebuilding plan. They're more likely to challenge for 100 losses than for the NL West title.
1. Los Angeles Dodgers: It all starts with Clayton Kershaw and goes from there. And he actually won't have to bear the entire pitching burden himself this season, as Hyun-Jin Ryu and Brandon McCarthy both return from the injuries that resulted in their respective 2016s being lost seasons. Their rotation isn't strong as the Cubs (which is one the reasons Chicago beat them in the NLCS). But they've long needed to give Kershaw some help, and this year it looks like they finally might be able to. They also benefitted greatly from re-signing their two biggest free agents. They wouldn't have been able to replace Kenley Jansen and Justin Turner with anyone near the same caliber. And I've got an idea for another free agent the Dodgers should sign. Angel Pagan. How perfectly would he fit in as their left fielder? Andre Ethier is nothing more than a pinch hitter at this point, and I still have no idea who Andrew Toles is. Once other teams start scouting him, I think he's really going to struggle. Hopefully the struggles are over for the Dodgers' other two outfielders--Joc Pederson and Yasiel Puig. If they can get back to the same type of numbers they put up as rookies, this lineup becomes even more formidable. Logan Forsythe is a clear upgrade at second base, and he can even move over to short if Corey Seager is out for an extended period. Unless something drastic happens, expect to see this team in October once again. And this year I think they might be in for an extended stay.
Projected Lineup: Logan Forsythe-SS, Chase Utley-2B, Adrian Gonzalez-1B, Justin Turner-3B, Yasmani Grandal-C, Joc Pederson-CF, Yasiel Puig-RF, Andrew Toles-LF (Corey Seager)
Projected Rotation: Clayton Kershaw, Kenta Maeda, Brandon McCarthy, Rich Hill, Hyun-Jin Ryu
Closer: Kenley Jansen
Projected Record: 96-66
2. San Francisco Giants: Their even-year magic finally wore off. Now can they get over their odd-year negative karma? I really don't see a reason why not. Because the Giants are one of the best teams in the National League, and if anyone is going to give the Dodgers a run for the division title, it'll be them. All-Stars all over the field, starting with Madison Bumgarner, and now they've got an All-Star at the end of games, too. Mark Melancon is a clear upgrade at closer over whoever they had last season. The All-Stars extend to the position players, and it's much more than just WBC champions Buster Posey and Brandon Crawford. Posey, Hunter Pence and Brandon Belt are one of the best 3-4-5 combos out there, and they're really strong at the top with Denard Span and Joe Panik. I found it a little curious that they didn't even make an attempt to re-sign Angel Pagan, but they've got confidence in Jarrett Parker. But, if Parker doesn't perform or Pagan signs with the Dodgers and does, they may come to regret it. They also aren't incredibly deep, so any injury is something to worry about. Especially in the rotation, which is much more than just Bumgarner. Remember, Matt Cain used to be this team's ace, and he's now their No. 5 starter. If they can stay healthy, though, the Giants are a serious contender not just in the NL West, but in the entire National League.
Projected Lineup: Denard Span-CF, Joe Panik-2B, Buster Posey-C, Hunter Pence-RF, Brandon Belt-1B, Jarrett Parker-LF, Eduardo Nunez-3B, Brandon Crawford-SS
Projected Rotation: Madison Bumgarner, Johnny Cueto, Matt Moore, Jeff Samardzija, Matt Cain
Closer: Mark Melancon
Projected Record: 91-71
3. Colorado Rockies: Slowly but surely, we're finding out the names of the players on the Colorado Rockies. We already knew about Carlos Gonzalez, and that was Rockies third baseman Nolan Arenado striking out in the middle of the USA lineup during the WBC. As it turns out, he's led the NL in RBIs in each of the last two years. Although, seeing as the Rockies have been in existence for 25 years and that's been their M.O. the entire time, that shouldn't really surprise anybody. And it doesn't seem likely to change this year. They're going to hit a lot of homers and score a lot of runs in that thin mountain air. Will they get the pitching to back it up though? Probably not. Former Royal Greg Holland returns from Tommy John surgery as the Rockies' new closer, but how many save opportunities is he going to get? It's doesn't seem like it'll be a lot. I get it. Pitching's never going to be their strength. They know that, too. So they're once again going to rely on beating teams 9-7. Fortunately they've got the offense and the ballpark to do that. They won't win enough games to be contenders, but they're definitely capable of threatening the .500 mark. Third place seems like a lock for this team. They're just so much better than both the Diamondbacks and Padres.
Projected Lineup: Gerardo Parra-LF, DJ LeMahieu-2B, Nolan Arenado-3B, Carlos Gonzalez-RF, Mark Reynolds-1B, Trevor Story-SS, Charlie Blackmon-CF, Tony Wolters-C
Projected Rotation: Jon Gray, Tyler Anderson, Tyler Chatwood, Antonio Senzatela, Kyle Freeland
Closer: Greg Holland
Projected Record: 80-82
4. Arizona Diamondbacks: I have one question for all those morons that were clamoring for Paul Goldschmidt to play during the World Baseball Classic. Did you want him to sit Eric Hosmer? Can you really tell me Goldschmidt, who was the American DH until Giancarlo seized the role, deserved to start over a guy who was on base the entire tournament?! Anyway, I digress. There are other players on the Diamondbacks not named Goldschmidt, but not enough to make them relevant. Even if Yasmany Tomas and A.J. Pollock are entertaining to watch. If they have any chance in the NL West, it'll come down to Zack Greinke and the pitching staff. They broke the bank going after Greinke, but he went just 13-7 with a 4.37 ERA during his first season in the desert. Keep in mind, as Arizona's No. 1, he's pitching against Kershaw and Bumgarner on a regular basis, and he isn't as good as either one of them. Not that any team in their right mind wouldn't take Greinke. Shelby Miller was their other big get last offseason, and he was so bad they sent him to the Minors. They need a bounce back from him. I'll give them this...their pitching staff isn't that bad. And their bullpen got better with the addition of Fernando Rodney, who was so good as the closer in San Diego that he made the All-Star team before becoming completely useless as a setup guy in Miami. The Diamondbacks are his fifth team in three years, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him make it six and get traded at the deadline again. I can also see the Diamondbacks surprising us all and remaining relevant enough to be buyers at the deadline.
Projected Lineup: A.J. Pollock-CF, Chris Owings-SS, Paul Goldschmidt-1B, Jake Lamb-3B, Yasmany Tomas-LF, Brandon Drury-2B, David Peralta-RF, Jeff Mathis-C
Projected Rotation: Zack Greinke, Taijuan Walker, Robbie Ray, Shelby Miller, Patrick Corbin
Closer: Fernando Rodney
Projected Record: 75-87
5. San Diego Padres: San Diego saw better baseball in the World Baseball Classic than it will at any point during the Padres' season. This team isn't good, and there's no chance they're going to contend in 2017. Not in a division that includes the Dodgers and Giants. There isn't a single player on the Padres' roster worth getting excited about. Sure, they've got a couple names you recognize, but this team isn't going anywhere (which, unlike their football-playing counterparts, I mean both literally and figuratively). Tony Gwynn and Trevor Hoffman aren't walking through the door anytime soon, either. In fact, now that the All-Star Game is over, the thing Padres fans can get the most excited about is Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction in 2018. On the field, though, they're going to be tough to watch. They know it, too. There are a lot of rookies and second-year players who are going to get a lot of playing time on this team. They do have some veterans, though. In fact, they've added two more in former Angels Erick Aybar and Jered Weaver. Weaver is the interesting one. Let's see how he adjusts to the National League after spending his entire career until now in Anaheim (I thought he'd be an Angel forever). He did win 18 games just three years ago, so if he gets his form back, that's a nice arm to have. I'm curious as to why Jhoulys Chacin is listed as their No. 1 starter and Weaver's only No. 4, but it doesn't much matter. Just like it really doesn't matter who they decide on for a closer. Either way, tt's going to be a long summer in San Diego. At least the weather's nice.
Projected Lineup: Manuel Margot-CF, Erick Aybar-SS, Wil Myers-1B, Travis Jankowski-LF, Ryan Schimpf-3B, Hunter Renfroe-RF, Yangervis Solarte-2B, Austin Hedges-C
Projected Rotation: Jhoulys Chacin, Clayton Richard, Trevor Cahill, Jered Weaver, Luis Perdomo
Closer: Brandon Maurer
Projected Record: 67-95
So, I've got the National League playoff field looking awfully similar to what it was last season. All three division winners are the same, and you're just replacing the Mets with the Cardinals in the Wild Card Game. And we all know how the NL Wild Card Game goes. Madison Bumgarner pitches a three-hitter and the Giants advance. I have them playing a fun series with the rival Dodgers, while the Nationals and Cubs square off in the other Division Series. I'll take LA and Washington to advance, with the Dodgers finally getting over the hump and back to the World Series for the first time in 29 years.
As I previously revealed, my AL pennant winner is Boston, giving us a World Series matchup between two of Baseball's marquee franchises. I just think the Dodgers are too loaded, though. If the 2015 NLCS was the learning experience the Cubs brought into last season, I see the Dodgers using the 2016 NLCS as a similar springboard. They're getting tired of hearing about their playoff failures. And the only way to shut people up is to win. Which is exactly what I see them doing. In six games. They win it for Vin in their first season without him since 1950.
But before we put our Caps On, it's time to finish up the baseball preview. As usual, we end with Part VI, the NL West. And as usual, the Dodgers are the clear favorites in the NL West. I really don't see that changing anytime soon. This team is loaded, and they have a singular mission of winning the World Series. Until that happens, expect to see them losing in the playoffs.
The Giants are probably the only team in the NL West that can even give the Dodgers any sort of a challenge. The Rockies and Diamondbacks both have some quality pieces, but nowhere near enough of them. And Padres are just a mess. San Diego's only pro team enters about year 12 of its 10-year rebuilding plan. They're more likely to challenge for 100 losses than for the NL West title.
1. Los Angeles Dodgers: It all starts with Clayton Kershaw and goes from there. And he actually won't have to bear the entire pitching burden himself this season, as Hyun-Jin Ryu and Brandon McCarthy both return from the injuries that resulted in their respective 2016s being lost seasons. Their rotation isn't strong as the Cubs (which is one the reasons Chicago beat them in the NLCS). But they've long needed to give Kershaw some help, and this year it looks like they finally might be able to. They also benefitted greatly from re-signing their two biggest free agents. They wouldn't have been able to replace Kenley Jansen and Justin Turner with anyone near the same caliber. And I've got an idea for another free agent the Dodgers should sign. Angel Pagan. How perfectly would he fit in as their left fielder? Andre Ethier is nothing more than a pinch hitter at this point, and I still have no idea who Andrew Toles is. Once other teams start scouting him, I think he's really going to struggle. Hopefully the struggles are over for the Dodgers' other two outfielders--Joc Pederson and Yasiel Puig. If they can get back to the same type of numbers they put up as rookies, this lineup becomes even more formidable. Logan Forsythe is a clear upgrade at second base, and he can even move over to short if Corey Seager is out for an extended period. Unless something drastic happens, expect to see this team in October once again. And this year I think they might be in for an extended stay.
Projected Lineup: Logan Forsythe-SS, Chase Utley-2B, Adrian Gonzalez-1B, Justin Turner-3B, Yasmani Grandal-C, Joc Pederson-CF, Yasiel Puig-RF, Andrew Toles-LF (Corey Seager)
Projected Rotation: Clayton Kershaw, Kenta Maeda, Brandon McCarthy, Rich Hill, Hyun-Jin Ryu
Closer: Kenley Jansen
Projected Record: 96-66
2. San Francisco Giants: Their even-year magic finally wore off. Now can they get over their odd-year negative karma? I really don't see a reason why not. Because the Giants are one of the best teams in the National League, and if anyone is going to give the Dodgers a run for the division title, it'll be them. All-Stars all over the field, starting with Madison Bumgarner, and now they've got an All-Star at the end of games, too. Mark Melancon is a clear upgrade at closer over whoever they had last season. The All-Stars extend to the position players, and it's much more than just WBC champions Buster Posey and Brandon Crawford. Posey, Hunter Pence and Brandon Belt are one of the best 3-4-5 combos out there, and they're really strong at the top with Denard Span and Joe Panik. I found it a little curious that they didn't even make an attempt to re-sign Angel Pagan, but they've got confidence in Jarrett Parker. But, if Parker doesn't perform or Pagan signs with the Dodgers and does, they may come to regret it. They also aren't incredibly deep, so any injury is something to worry about. Especially in the rotation, which is much more than just Bumgarner. Remember, Matt Cain used to be this team's ace, and he's now their No. 5 starter. If they can stay healthy, though, the Giants are a serious contender not just in the NL West, but in the entire National League.
Projected Lineup: Denard Span-CF, Joe Panik-2B, Buster Posey-C, Hunter Pence-RF, Brandon Belt-1B, Jarrett Parker-LF, Eduardo Nunez-3B, Brandon Crawford-SS
Projected Rotation: Madison Bumgarner, Johnny Cueto, Matt Moore, Jeff Samardzija, Matt Cain
Closer: Mark Melancon
Projected Record: 91-71
3. Colorado Rockies: Slowly but surely, we're finding out the names of the players on the Colorado Rockies. We already knew about Carlos Gonzalez, and that was Rockies third baseman Nolan Arenado striking out in the middle of the USA lineup during the WBC. As it turns out, he's led the NL in RBIs in each of the last two years. Although, seeing as the Rockies have been in existence for 25 years and that's been their M.O. the entire time, that shouldn't really surprise anybody. And it doesn't seem likely to change this year. They're going to hit a lot of homers and score a lot of runs in that thin mountain air. Will they get the pitching to back it up though? Probably not. Former Royal Greg Holland returns from Tommy John surgery as the Rockies' new closer, but how many save opportunities is he going to get? It's doesn't seem like it'll be a lot. I get it. Pitching's never going to be their strength. They know that, too. So they're once again going to rely on beating teams 9-7. Fortunately they've got the offense and the ballpark to do that. They won't win enough games to be contenders, but they're definitely capable of threatening the .500 mark. Third place seems like a lock for this team. They're just so much better than both the Diamondbacks and Padres.
Projected Lineup: Gerardo Parra-LF, DJ LeMahieu-2B, Nolan Arenado-3B, Carlos Gonzalez-RF, Mark Reynolds-1B, Trevor Story-SS, Charlie Blackmon-CF, Tony Wolters-C
Projected Rotation: Jon Gray, Tyler Anderson, Tyler Chatwood, Antonio Senzatela, Kyle Freeland
Closer: Greg Holland
Projected Record: 80-82
4. Arizona Diamondbacks: I have one question for all those morons that were clamoring for Paul Goldschmidt to play during the World Baseball Classic. Did you want him to sit Eric Hosmer? Can you really tell me Goldschmidt, who was the American DH until Giancarlo seized the role, deserved to start over a guy who was on base the entire tournament?! Anyway, I digress. There are other players on the Diamondbacks not named Goldschmidt, but not enough to make them relevant. Even if Yasmany Tomas and A.J. Pollock are entertaining to watch. If they have any chance in the NL West, it'll come down to Zack Greinke and the pitching staff. They broke the bank going after Greinke, but he went just 13-7 with a 4.37 ERA during his first season in the desert. Keep in mind, as Arizona's No. 1, he's pitching against Kershaw and Bumgarner on a regular basis, and he isn't as good as either one of them. Not that any team in their right mind wouldn't take Greinke. Shelby Miller was their other big get last offseason, and he was so bad they sent him to the Minors. They need a bounce back from him. I'll give them this...their pitching staff isn't that bad. And their bullpen got better with the addition of Fernando Rodney, who was so good as the closer in San Diego that he made the All-Star team before becoming completely useless as a setup guy in Miami. The Diamondbacks are his fifth team in three years, and I wouldn't be surprised to see him make it six and get traded at the deadline again. I can also see the Diamondbacks surprising us all and remaining relevant enough to be buyers at the deadline.
Projected Lineup: A.J. Pollock-CF, Chris Owings-SS, Paul Goldschmidt-1B, Jake Lamb-3B, Yasmany Tomas-LF, Brandon Drury-2B, David Peralta-RF, Jeff Mathis-C
Projected Rotation: Zack Greinke, Taijuan Walker, Robbie Ray, Shelby Miller, Patrick Corbin
Closer: Fernando Rodney
Projected Record: 75-87
5. San Diego Padres: San Diego saw better baseball in the World Baseball Classic than it will at any point during the Padres' season. This team isn't good, and there's no chance they're going to contend in 2017. Not in a division that includes the Dodgers and Giants. There isn't a single player on the Padres' roster worth getting excited about. Sure, they've got a couple names you recognize, but this team isn't going anywhere (which, unlike their football-playing counterparts, I mean both literally and figuratively). Tony Gwynn and Trevor Hoffman aren't walking through the door anytime soon, either. In fact, now that the All-Star Game is over, the thing Padres fans can get the most excited about is Hoffman's Hall of Fame induction in 2018. On the field, though, they're going to be tough to watch. They know it, too. There are a lot of rookies and second-year players who are going to get a lot of playing time on this team. They do have some veterans, though. In fact, they've added two more in former Angels Erick Aybar and Jered Weaver. Weaver is the interesting one. Let's see how he adjusts to the National League after spending his entire career until now in Anaheim (I thought he'd be an Angel forever). He did win 18 games just three years ago, so if he gets his form back, that's a nice arm to have. I'm curious as to why Jhoulys Chacin is listed as their No. 1 starter and Weaver's only No. 4, but it doesn't much matter. Just like it really doesn't matter who they decide on for a closer. Either way, tt's going to be a long summer in San Diego. At least the weather's nice.
Projected Lineup: Manuel Margot-CF, Erick Aybar-SS, Wil Myers-1B, Travis Jankowski-LF, Ryan Schimpf-3B, Hunter Renfroe-RF, Yangervis Solarte-2B, Austin Hedges-C
Projected Rotation: Jhoulys Chacin, Clayton Richard, Trevor Cahill, Jered Weaver, Luis Perdomo
Closer: Brandon Maurer
Projected Record: 67-95
So, I've got the National League playoff field looking awfully similar to what it was last season. All three division winners are the same, and you're just replacing the Mets with the Cardinals in the Wild Card Game. And we all know how the NL Wild Card Game goes. Madison Bumgarner pitches a three-hitter and the Giants advance. I have them playing a fun series with the rival Dodgers, while the Nationals and Cubs square off in the other Division Series. I'll take LA and Washington to advance, with the Dodgers finally getting over the hump and back to the World Series for the first time in 29 years.
As I previously revealed, my AL pennant winner is Boston, giving us a World Series matchup between two of Baseball's marquee franchises. I just think the Dodgers are too loaded, though. If the 2015 NLCS was the learning experience the Cubs brought into last season, I see the Dodgers using the 2016 NLCS as a similar springboard. They're getting tired of hearing about their playoff failures. And the only way to shut people up is to win. Which is exactly what I see them doing. In six games. They win it for Vin in their first season without him since 1950.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)