The NHL is currently involved in the second round of expansion talks with potential ownership groups in Las Vegas and Quebec City. They've said that "nothing imminent" is going to happen, but I don't think there's a single person that actually buys that. When the NHL realigned into four divisions, with two divisions of eight teams and two of seven, expansion seemed inevitable. So, while it might not be for 2016-17 or even 2017-18, I think we can all agree that the NHL wouldn't be talking expansion with Las Vegas and Quebec City if they weren't planning on putting teams there.
I think it's funny that the NHL is saying that they're not necessarily expanding, and if they do, they're not necessarily adding more than one team. Well, they're either adding two or adding none. They aren't going to have a 31-team league. Is it possible they're just saying that so Seattle has time to get its act together and give them three options? Sure. But I think it's probably more likely the third city in the mix would be a relocation candidate rather than a potential expansion site.
When they first threw the idea of NHL expansion out there, it seemed like they were simply gauging interest to see if there was actually going to be any competition for the openings. Because professional sports leagues don't bring up expansion if they're not seriously considering it. (When's the last time someone talked about NFL or MLB expansion?)
You know the other 30 owners would love to get their hands on their share of that expansion fee, which is reported to be $500 million apiece. I'm sure when it comes time to include two more teams in the revenue sharing pie, they probably wouldn't be as eager to welcome Las Vegas and Quebec, though. However, with the increased revenue that those two cities would bring in, there'll be plenty more money to share.
On the surface, Las Vegas doesn't seem like much of a hockey town. But it's also the biggest city in the U.S. without a major league pro sports team. It's going to be mentioned in every expansion conversation until one of the leagues is bold enough to take the risk of putting a team there. One of the four will eventually. It's really just a matter of who does it first. The NHL has always seemed the most likely to take a chance on Vegas, and I'd be shocked if this didn't lead to a team there. Especially with that new arena being built on the Strip. Boxing and UNLV basketball are nice. But that arena's being built for one reason: the lure the NBA and/or NHL to Sin City.
Personally, I always thought the NBA would be the ones to make the Vegas move first. And they still might. If an NBA team doesn't relocate to Seattle within the next few years, you know the Sonics will return as an expansion team. That would bring the NBA to 31, and Las Vegas seems the likely candidate to join Seattle to be No. 32 and keep it at an even number. But if the NHL can get there first, would that change things?
Quebec City, on the other hand, is thinking about the NHL and the NHL only. They've wanted a new team ever since the Nordiques left and won the Stanley Cup in their first season as the Avalanche. That was 20 years ago! There's a whole generation of fans throughout French Canada who root for the Canadiens because they're the only team to root for. Montreal just played a sold out preseason game at the new arena in Quebec, and there were as many Canadiens jerseys in the stands as Nordiques jerseys, something that never would've been possible during that rivalry's heyday.
Winnipeg got its team back, and the NHL returning to Quebec seems the next logical place. The passion is clearly there. That fan base was able to support a team for a long time, and they'll embrace a new team just as quickly as they embraced the Nordiques. And the reason they left had nothing to do with any of that. They left because they played in a small market (that only speaks French) with a weak Canadian dollar, which made it difficult for them to compete. I'm not saying all of the issues that forced the original Nordiques to leave have been solved, but the NHL has since taken steps to protect these small-market Canadian teams.
Both cities are a risk--for completely different reasons. But they both seem like risks worth taking. Quebec City is chomping at the bit to be back in the NHL. And, while not as obvious as its desire to return to Winnipeg, I think the NHL would love to have Quebec City back, too. An eighth Canadian team, a second team in French Canada, a(nother) natural rival for Montreal. And it's not like they tried and failed in Quebec City. The situation in Quebec City was unique. They deserve a second chance.
As for Las Vegas, it's a matter of you don't know until you try it. Will they embrace the NHL, especially an expansion team that's likely not going to be any good, when there are so many other entertainment options in the city? Are there even hockey fans in Las Vegas to begin with? If the answer to both those questions is "Yes," imagine the potential!
Seattle's the wild card here. I'm pretty sure Seattle's priority is getting back its NBA team that never should've left, but the basketball team would need an arena, and it would be a lot easier to convince the taxpayers to finance an arena for two pro teams to play in. I think it's more likely Seattle will be used as a relocation target, though. If the NHL was thinking about Seattle for expansion, they'd be involved in these talks. They're not. The new teams will be in Las Vegas and Quebec City. That is, of course, if there are new teams at all (wink, wink).
Wednesday, September 30, 2015
Tuesday, September 29, 2015
The Baseball/Softball Return?
When the IOC announced that there would no longer be a 28-sport cap and Olympic hosts were free to propose sports/events for their specific Games, starting with Tokyo 2020, everyone knew that it was inevitable the Japanese would push for the reintroduction of baseball and softball to the Olympic program. So it came as no surprise that baseball/softball (it's a combined bid from the international federation that governs both sports) was included on the list of sports that Tokyo 2020 has proposed for inclusion. The others are a little more surprising. Skateboarding, surfing, sport climbing and karate, but no squash.
Now, I love that the IOC has eliminated the 28-sport cap. It seemed incredibly arbitrary, and, since the only way for a new sport to be added was for another to be eliminated, it was the source of a lot of controversy. Hence the great wrestling debacle. This new rule keeps the Olympics fresh and relevant without sports having to pay the ultimate price (Olympic status) simply because they aren't popular enough on TV.
However, I have problems with this new method, too. The main one being that you're proposing sports only for your Olympics. So, if any of these are added for 2020, they could just as easily be gone by 2024. Baseball and softball are the prime example of this. If the 2024 Games go to Los Angeles, there's no question they'd stay on the program. But that's the only guarantee. They'd probably be safe with Rome or Hamburg, but do you really think the organizers of the Paris and Budapest bids have any interest in holding an Olympic baseball tournament?
Once a sport's in the Olympics, it should be in the Olympics. That's it. There are 25 "core" sports that have nothing to worry about. They're guaranteed to be on the Olympic program. Rugby and golf are guaranteed at least Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020, but is there any doubt they're now permanent Olympic fixtures? Same thing with wrestling. When it was reinstated, it was technically just for 2020 and 2024. But seeing as wrestling never should've been dropped from the Olympics in the first place, there's no way they're ever going to try removing it again.
Anyway, my whole point here is that baseball and softball are the favorites to be brought back in Tokyo, but what's the point if it's only for one Olympics? How would that be any less damaging to the sports than when they were dropped in 2005? In fact, it would probably be worse. They're already the first sports to be cut from the Olympic program in more than half a century. No sport has ever been cut twice. Yet I have a feeling that's exactly what will happen with baseball and softball if they don't put some sort of provision in that says the added sport must be included in at least two consecutive Olympics.
With all that being said, however, I'm glad baseball and softball will likely be returning to the Olympics, at least for Tokyo 2020. This rule change was made after Tokyo was awarded the Games, and many think the reason why was so that the door could be opened for baseball and softball to be brought back, especially since there are plenty of people who think it was a mistake to drop them in the first place. Remember, it was by no means unanimous to eliminate them. The vote in 2005 was close, and baseball/softball both almost made the cut (as separate sports) when they added rugby and golf for Rio and again (as a combined bid) when wrestling was kept on the program for Tokyo.
So, yeah, I'm fairly confident baseball and softball will be played at the Tokyo Olympics. Baseball is Japan's national sport, they won the first two World Baseball Classics, and the Japanese Major Leagues are the second-best in the world. And they obviously wouldn't need to build a venue. The Yomiuri Giants, Japan's version of the Yankees, play at the Tokyo Dome. No, Major Leaguers won't be there, but the Japanese pros will, and so will (presumably) the Cuban National Team. That's enough.
While baseball doesn't need the Olympics and vice-versa, softball does need the Olympics, and it was softball that felt the blow of the 2005 decision more deeply. Baseball players have the Major Leagues and the World Series. Softball players had the Olympic gold medal as their ultimate. Then that was taken away. And let's not forget, the United States won the first three Olympic softball gold medals, but the defending champions are? Japan!
As for the other sports, they're an obvious attempt to make the Olympics "appeal more to youth." Surfing makes very little sense to me. Only a handful of countries are capable of being good at it, and I can't see any Olympics in Europe including surfing. Likewise, I doubt there would be need for a "surf park," which can apparently work as a venue in lieu of the ocean (I'm not sure how).
Same thing with skateboarding. It's technically listed as "roller sports," but roller speed skating and roller figure skating weren't included in the proposal. Just skateboarding. Skateboarding, which has its own international federation (two in fact), was listed as "roller sports," while speed skating and figure skating, both of which actually require the use of roller skates, aren't? Please!
They're obviously looking at it in the same way as BMX, but, and it might just be me, I just don't see skateboarding in the Olympics. The X-Games athlete and fan is an entirely different demographic than the Olympic fan. I know the IOC is trying to change that perception, but I'm not sure it would be the mutually-beneficial relationship everything thinks it would.
Sport climbing, on the other hand, would be a really cool addition. There's nothing like it currently in the Olympics. It's been in both editions of the Youth Olympics and was a big hit. You've all seen (and probably tried) the rock climbing wall at your gym. That's all you would need to set up. They've proposed two different events: speed (think "The Wall" from American Gladiators) and bouldering (which is the type where you don't use a rope). Sport climbing has been included on finalist lists of proposed Olympic sports before, and it would be a fun addition to the program. It's also one I could see sticking around.
Like baseball/softball, karate seemed likely to make the cut. It's included in pretty much all of the continental Games and is native to Japan. But do we really need another martial art? There's already judo and taekwondo, and you've also got the combat sports of boxing and wrestling.
Squash, bowling and something called wushu didn't make the cut. That's another tough blow for squash, which has come so close to Olympic inclusion too many times to count now. Every time squash seems like it's on the cusp of being added to the Games, it once again isn't, leaving the International Squash Federation wondering what they have to do to make Olympic organizers change their minds.
The other five sports now move on to the final IOC vote during the Rio Games. It's possible that they could decide none of them will be added, but I think we all know that's unlikely. It's also possible they add all five, increasing the total number of events by 18, although that also seems unlikely. My guess is that baseball/softball and one or two of the others will be added to the Olympics for Tokyo 2020. Beyond that, though, who knows?
Now, I love that the IOC has eliminated the 28-sport cap. It seemed incredibly arbitrary, and, since the only way for a new sport to be added was for another to be eliminated, it was the source of a lot of controversy. Hence the great wrestling debacle. This new rule keeps the Olympics fresh and relevant without sports having to pay the ultimate price (Olympic status) simply because they aren't popular enough on TV.
However, I have problems with this new method, too. The main one being that you're proposing sports only for your Olympics. So, if any of these are added for 2020, they could just as easily be gone by 2024. Baseball and softball are the prime example of this. If the 2024 Games go to Los Angeles, there's no question they'd stay on the program. But that's the only guarantee. They'd probably be safe with Rome or Hamburg, but do you really think the organizers of the Paris and Budapest bids have any interest in holding an Olympic baseball tournament?
Once a sport's in the Olympics, it should be in the Olympics. That's it. There are 25 "core" sports that have nothing to worry about. They're guaranteed to be on the Olympic program. Rugby and golf are guaranteed at least Rio 2016 and Tokyo 2020, but is there any doubt they're now permanent Olympic fixtures? Same thing with wrestling. When it was reinstated, it was technically just for 2020 and 2024. But seeing as wrestling never should've been dropped from the Olympics in the first place, there's no way they're ever going to try removing it again.
Anyway, my whole point here is that baseball and softball are the favorites to be brought back in Tokyo, but what's the point if it's only for one Olympics? How would that be any less damaging to the sports than when they were dropped in 2005? In fact, it would probably be worse. They're already the first sports to be cut from the Olympic program in more than half a century. No sport has ever been cut twice. Yet I have a feeling that's exactly what will happen with baseball and softball if they don't put some sort of provision in that says the added sport must be included in at least two consecutive Olympics.
With all that being said, however, I'm glad baseball and softball will likely be returning to the Olympics, at least for Tokyo 2020. This rule change was made after Tokyo was awarded the Games, and many think the reason why was so that the door could be opened for baseball and softball to be brought back, especially since there are plenty of people who think it was a mistake to drop them in the first place. Remember, it was by no means unanimous to eliminate them. The vote in 2005 was close, and baseball/softball both almost made the cut (as separate sports) when they added rugby and golf for Rio and again (as a combined bid) when wrestling was kept on the program for Tokyo.
So, yeah, I'm fairly confident baseball and softball will be played at the Tokyo Olympics. Baseball is Japan's national sport, they won the first two World Baseball Classics, and the Japanese Major Leagues are the second-best in the world. And they obviously wouldn't need to build a venue. The Yomiuri Giants, Japan's version of the Yankees, play at the Tokyo Dome. No, Major Leaguers won't be there, but the Japanese pros will, and so will (presumably) the Cuban National Team. That's enough.
While baseball doesn't need the Olympics and vice-versa, softball does need the Olympics, and it was softball that felt the blow of the 2005 decision more deeply. Baseball players have the Major Leagues and the World Series. Softball players had the Olympic gold medal as their ultimate. Then that was taken away. And let's not forget, the United States won the first three Olympic softball gold medals, but the defending champions are? Japan!
As for the other sports, they're an obvious attempt to make the Olympics "appeal more to youth." Surfing makes very little sense to me. Only a handful of countries are capable of being good at it, and I can't see any Olympics in Europe including surfing. Likewise, I doubt there would be need for a "surf park," which can apparently work as a venue in lieu of the ocean (I'm not sure how).
Same thing with skateboarding. It's technically listed as "roller sports," but roller speed skating and roller figure skating weren't included in the proposal. Just skateboarding. Skateboarding, which has its own international federation (two in fact), was listed as "roller sports," while speed skating and figure skating, both of which actually require the use of roller skates, aren't? Please!
They're obviously looking at it in the same way as BMX, but, and it might just be me, I just don't see skateboarding in the Olympics. The X-Games athlete and fan is an entirely different demographic than the Olympic fan. I know the IOC is trying to change that perception, but I'm not sure it would be the mutually-beneficial relationship everything thinks it would.
Sport climbing, on the other hand, would be a really cool addition. There's nothing like it currently in the Olympics. It's been in both editions of the Youth Olympics and was a big hit. You've all seen (and probably tried) the rock climbing wall at your gym. That's all you would need to set up. They've proposed two different events: speed (think "The Wall" from American Gladiators) and bouldering (which is the type where you don't use a rope). Sport climbing has been included on finalist lists of proposed Olympic sports before, and it would be a fun addition to the program. It's also one I could see sticking around.
Like baseball/softball, karate seemed likely to make the cut. It's included in pretty much all of the continental Games and is native to Japan. But do we really need another martial art? There's already judo and taekwondo, and you've also got the combat sports of boxing and wrestling.
Squash, bowling and something called wushu didn't make the cut. That's another tough blow for squash, which has come so close to Olympic inclusion too many times to count now. Every time squash seems like it's on the cusp of being added to the Games, it once again isn't, leaving the International Squash Federation wondering what they have to do to make Olympic organizers change their minds.
The other five sports now move on to the final IOC vote during the Rio Games. It's possible that they could decide none of them will be added, but I think we all know that's unlikely. It's also possible they add all five, increasing the total number of events by 18, although that also seems unlikely. My guess is that baseball/softball and one or two of the others will be added to the Olympics for Tokyo 2020. Beyond that, though, who knows?
Saturday, September 26, 2015
2015 Football Picks, Week 3
Rough week last week. Some unexpected results across the league, with surprising upsets and teams that I thought were good once again underperforming. It's still early, though, so I guess there's plenty of time for things to get straightened out on the Road to Super Bowl 50. And with some significant injuries already coming into play, it's going to be an interesting season indeed.
Thursday Night: Giants (Win)
Raiders (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Cleveland-These are two of the teams that surprised me last week. I think the Raiders just took advantage of a shell-shocked Ravens team that spent a full week on the West Coast prior to the game. Now a trip to Cleveland for their third straight matchup against an AFC North opponent. The Browns got a win last week with Johnny Manziel at quarterback, leading to the inevitable calls of Johnny Overrated being the permanent starter. But Josh McCown is back and Manziel returns to the bench for this one. It's a chance for Cleveland to go above .500 before heading west to San Diego next week. The Browns are a better team than the Raiders, and Oakland's traveling for a 1:00 game. I like Cleveland.
Falcons (2-0) at Cowboys (2-0): Atlanta-Over the first two weeks of the season, Atlanta, despite playing in the NFC South, has proven to be the best team in the NFC East. In fact, both of these teams have beaten both the Eagles and Giants in their first two games. Except Dallas suffered a big loss last week when Tony Romo went down. This is now Branden Weeden's team for at least the next two months, although they did trade for Matt Cassell just in case. In a weakened NFC East, Dallas is still in a good position to win the division if they can hold out until Romo's back. I need to see the Romo-less Cowboys first, though. That's why I'm going with the Falcons here.
Colts (0-2) at Titans (1-1): Tennessee-My parents are actually going to this game during their trip to Nashville that also included a Saturday night stop at the Grand Ole Opry (so jealous). Anyway, Marcus Mariota makes his home debut after looking great in Tampa and shaky in Cleveland. The Colts, meanwhile, a popular preseason Super Bowl pick (including by this guy) don't look like it after two lackluster performances against the Bills and Jets. Where is this vaunted Colts offense? Indy badly needs a win, but I think Mariota and the Titans are going to be amped up to finally play at home. I'm calling the upset. Titans match last year's win total.
Steelers (1-1) at Rams (1-1): Pittsburgh-Where was that St. Louis Rams team that beat the Seahawks last week? Did they stay in St. Louis while some other guys borrowed their uniforms and flew to Washington? Now they return home to face a Steelers team that sure got over the sting of opening night by absolutely thumping the 49ers. The Rams should be 2-0 right now. Instead, they'll come out of this game 1-2.
Chargers (1-1) at Vikings (1-1): San Diego-Another matchup of 1-1 teams in the Twin Cities. San Diego travels east for an early game for the second time in as many weeks. The Chargers lost in Cincinnati, but it was a close game against a good Bengals team. The Vikings won their home opener against the Lions, but I still haven't seen this team some are calling a sleeper playoff pick. Even though the chalk says to pick Minnesota, I'm feeling the Chargers here for some reason.
Jaguars (1-1) at Patriots (2-0): New England-Don't look now, but the Jacksonville Jaguars are in first place in the AFC South. Well, actually, look now, because they're headed to New England this week. It's conceivable that the entire AFC South could be 1-2 at the end of the day, while the Patriots will be among the handful of teams that are 3-0.
Eagles (0-2) at Jets (2-0): Jets-It hasn't quite clicked for Chip Kelly's Eagles yet this year. Hence all the DeMarco Murray memes that have popped up all over social media this week. The Jets, though. They look like the real deal, especially on defense, after that performance in Indianapolis on Monday night. I still think the Eagles are a better team than the Jets, and I do expect Philly to turn it around. But not after they fall to 0-3 in their first of two visits to the Meadowlands this year.
Saints (0-2) at Panthers (2-0): Carolina-OK, I'll admit it. I was wrong about the Saints. Their time may be over. They're 0-2, they just lost at home to the Bucs, and now they won't have Drew Brees behind center for the first time since he came to New Orleans. Maybe it'll be just a one-week thing, but this was the worst possible week for that to happen. Because they'll effectively be four games behind Carolina after just three weeks.
Bengals (2-0) at Ravens (1-1): Cincinnati-Here we go. An AFC North battle between two playoff teams from last year. Baltimore finally gets to play at home after starting with two out west. Unfortunately, that first home game is against a division rival that's on a roll. The Bengals went out to Oakland and got a win, then knocked off San Diego. Can they make it 3-for-3 in Baltimore? The Ravens sure hope not. Especially with a short week before a Thursday-night visit to rival Pittsburgh.
Buccaneers (1-1) at Texans (0-2): Houston-I really don't know what to make of either of these teams. The Texans are 0-2, but they've played two good teams in Kansas City and Carolina. Tampa Bay got completely destroyed at home by Tennessee, only to go to New Orleans the next week and win. Unfortunately for them, Jamies Winston hasn't met J.J. Watt yet. Gimme the Texans to finally get in the win column.
49ers (1-1) at Cardinals (2-0): Arizona-Last year's Super Bowl host and this year's Super Bowl host square off in Phoenix with first place in the NFC West on the line. I think the 49ers team we saw last week in Pittsburgh is a more accurate representation of what we can expect from them this year. My confidence in them as they take a road trip to Arizona for a matchup with a Cardinals team that seemingly scores at will is limited.
Bills (1-1) at Dolphins (1-1): Buffalo-They're both coming off losses, and falling to 1-2 in a suddenly ultra-competitive AFC East isn't an intriguing possibility for either. The Bills losing to the Patriots could've been expected, even if Rex's vaunted defense was anything but. I'm still trying to figure out how Miami lost to Jacksonville, though. That shouldn't have happened. But since it did, that's enough of a reason for me to go with the Bills. Although, they hate going to Miami early in the season when it's still hot.
Bears (0-2) at Seahawks (0-2): Seattle-Can someone explain to me why a game between two NFC teams is the doubleheader game on CBS? I'm still trying to figure out how this whole "cross-flexing" thing works. Anyway, the Seahawks limp home at 0-2 after looking like a shell of the two-time defending NFC champions. However, Kam Chancellor's holdout is over, so I think we can expect Seattle to get a lot of its swagger back. Especially since they're playing a Bears team that isn't good. They'll be the one that drops to 0-3.
Broncos (2-0) at Lions (0-2): Denver-For the first time in its 10-year history, "Sunday Night Football" comes to Detroit. They go there to see Peyton Manning and the Broncos, who haven't played well at all this season (except for maybe five minutes in the Kansas City game), yet are 2-0. The suddenly awesome Denver defense might have a lot to do with that. For all the talk about who's got the best defense in football, I think it might be the Broncos, who are barely mentioned in those discussions. Peyton will be Peyton again before the season's out. But until then, I expect the defense to lift Denver to another win.
Chiefs (1-1) at Packers (2-0): Green Bay-We've got another Super Bowl rematch on Monday Night Football. It's fitting that on the 50th anniversary of the main event, the teams that met in the first one square off in the regular season. Kansas City has had extra long rest after giving the game away against Denver on Thursday night. The Steelers have that same thing coming up, and I don't like it. You shouldn't get two extra days off before a Monday night game (or go 11 days without playing!). But that's just me. Anyway, the Packers made a statement with their Sunday-night win over the Seahawks. Green Bays is my pick to win the Super Bowl and just might be the best team in the NFL. The Packers should be 3-0 come Tuesday.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 20-13
Thursday Night: Giants (Win)
Raiders (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Cleveland-These are two of the teams that surprised me last week. I think the Raiders just took advantage of a shell-shocked Ravens team that spent a full week on the West Coast prior to the game. Now a trip to Cleveland for their third straight matchup against an AFC North opponent. The Browns got a win last week with Johnny Manziel at quarterback, leading to the inevitable calls of Johnny Overrated being the permanent starter. But Josh McCown is back and Manziel returns to the bench for this one. It's a chance for Cleveland to go above .500 before heading west to San Diego next week. The Browns are a better team than the Raiders, and Oakland's traveling for a 1:00 game. I like Cleveland.
Falcons (2-0) at Cowboys (2-0): Atlanta-Over the first two weeks of the season, Atlanta, despite playing in the NFC South, has proven to be the best team in the NFC East. In fact, both of these teams have beaten both the Eagles and Giants in their first two games. Except Dallas suffered a big loss last week when Tony Romo went down. This is now Branden Weeden's team for at least the next two months, although they did trade for Matt Cassell just in case. In a weakened NFC East, Dallas is still in a good position to win the division if they can hold out until Romo's back. I need to see the Romo-less Cowboys first, though. That's why I'm going with the Falcons here.
Colts (0-2) at Titans (1-1): Tennessee-My parents are actually going to this game during their trip to Nashville that also included a Saturday night stop at the Grand Ole Opry (so jealous). Anyway, Marcus Mariota makes his home debut after looking great in Tampa and shaky in Cleveland. The Colts, meanwhile, a popular preseason Super Bowl pick (including by this guy) don't look like it after two lackluster performances against the Bills and Jets. Where is this vaunted Colts offense? Indy badly needs a win, but I think Mariota and the Titans are going to be amped up to finally play at home. I'm calling the upset. Titans match last year's win total.
Steelers (1-1) at Rams (1-1): Pittsburgh-Where was that St. Louis Rams team that beat the Seahawks last week? Did they stay in St. Louis while some other guys borrowed their uniforms and flew to Washington? Now they return home to face a Steelers team that sure got over the sting of opening night by absolutely thumping the 49ers. The Rams should be 2-0 right now. Instead, they'll come out of this game 1-2.
Chargers (1-1) at Vikings (1-1): San Diego-Another matchup of 1-1 teams in the Twin Cities. San Diego travels east for an early game for the second time in as many weeks. The Chargers lost in Cincinnati, but it was a close game against a good Bengals team. The Vikings won their home opener against the Lions, but I still haven't seen this team some are calling a sleeper playoff pick. Even though the chalk says to pick Minnesota, I'm feeling the Chargers here for some reason.
Jaguars (1-1) at Patriots (2-0): New England-Don't look now, but the Jacksonville Jaguars are in first place in the AFC South. Well, actually, look now, because they're headed to New England this week. It's conceivable that the entire AFC South could be 1-2 at the end of the day, while the Patriots will be among the handful of teams that are 3-0.
Eagles (0-2) at Jets (2-0): Jets-It hasn't quite clicked for Chip Kelly's Eagles yet this year. Hence all the DeMarco Murray memes that have popped up all over social media this week. The Jets, though. They look like the real deal, especially on defense, after that performance in Indianapolis on Monday night. I still think the Eagles are a better team than the Jets, and I do expect Philly to turn it around. But not after they fall to 0-3 in their first of two visits to the Meadowlands this year.
Saints (0-2) at Panthers (2-0): Carolina-OK, I'll admit it. I was wrong about the Saints. Their time may be over. They're 0-2, they just lost at home to the Bucs, and now they won't have Drew Brees behind center for the first time since he came to New Orleans. Maybe it'll be just a one-week thing, but this was the worst possible week for that to happen. Because they'll effectively be four games behind Carolina after just three weeks.
Bengals (2-0) at Ravens (1-1): Cincinnati-Here we go. An AFC North battle between two playoff teams from last year. Baltimore finally gets to play at home after starting with two out west. Unfortunately, that first home game is against a division rival that's on a roll. The Bengals went out to Oakland and got a win, then knocked off San Diego. Can they make it 3-for-3 in Baltimore? The Ravens sure hope not. Especially with a short week before a Thursday-night visit to rival Pittsburgh.
Buccaneers (1-1) at Texans (0-2): Houston-I really don't know what to make of either of these teams. The Texans are 0-2, but they've played two good teams in Kansas City and Carolina. Tampa Bay got completely destroyed at home by Tennessee, only to go to New Orleans the next week and win. Unfortunately for them, Jamies Winston hasn't met J.J. Watt yet. Gimme the Texans to finally get in the win column.
49ers (1-1) at Cardinals (2-0): Arizona-Last year's Super Bowl host and this year's Super Bowl host square off in Phoenix with first place in the NFC West on the line. I think the 49ers team we saw last week in Pittsburgh is a more accurate representation of what we can expect from them this year. My confidence in them as they take a road trip to Arizona for a matchup with a Cardinals team that seemingly scores at will is limited.
Bills (1-1) at Dolphins (1-1): Buffalo-They're both coming off losses, and falling to 1-2 in a suddenly ultra-competitive AFC East isn't an intriguing possibility for either. The Bills losing to the Patriots could've been expected, even if Rex's vaunted defense was anything but. I'm still trying to figure out how Miami lost to Jacksonville, though. That shouldn't have happened. But since it did, that's enough of a reason for me to go with the Bills. Although, they hate going to Miami early in the season when it's still hot.
Bears (0-2) at Seahawks (0-2): Seattle-Can someone explain to me why a game between two NFC teams is the doubleheader game on CBS? I'm still trying to figure out how this whole "cross-flexing" thing works. Anyway, the Seahawks limp home at 0-2 after looking like a shell of the two-time defending NFC champions. However, Kam Chancellor's holdout is over, so I think we can expect Seattle to get a lot of its swagger back. Especially since they're playing a Bears team that isn't good. They'll be the one that drops to 0-3.
Broncos (2-0) at Lions (0-2): Denver-For the first time in its 10-year history, "Sunday Night Football" comes to Detroit. They go there to see Peyton Manning and the Broncos, who haven't played well at all this season (except for maybe five minutes in the Kansas City game), yet are 2-0. The suddenly awesome Denver defense might have a lot to do with that. For all the talk about who's got the best defense in football, I think it might be the Broncos, who are barely mentioned in those discussions. Peyton will be Peyton again before the season's out. But until then, I expect the defense to lift Denver to another win.
Chiefs (1-1) at Packers (2-0): Green Bay-We've got another Super Bowl rematch on Monday Night Football. It's fitting that on the 50th anniversary of the main event, the teams that met in the first one square off in the regular season. Kansas City has had extra long rest after giving the game away against Denver on Thursday night. The Steelers have that same thing coming up, and I don't like it. You shouldn't get two extra days off before a Monday night game (or go 11 days without playing!). But that's just me. Anyway, the Packers made a statement with their Sunday-night win over the Seahawks. Green Bays is my pick to win the Super Bowl and just might be the best team in the NFL. The Packers should be 3-0 come Tuesday.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-8
Season: 20-13
Thursday, September 24, 2015
It Ain't Over Til It's Over
Like many people, I never met Yogi Berra. But that doesn't matter. Because like most, I felt like I "knew" him. The baseball world has lost a true icon. A quotable legend whose presence brightened up any room he was in. A figure beloved by all generations, from those who remember him as a player in the 50s and 60s, to those who followed his managing exploits in the 70s, to those around my age and younger who only saw his as a sort of unofficial Yankees mascot.
Yogi Berra was the link between the eras. His rookie year was 1946, when Joe DiMaggio was still the big man on campus. His prime coincided with the rise of the dynasty in the 1950s, when Mickey Mantle became the team's larger-than-life figure. Then in the 60s, he became the manager--and won the pennant in his first full season, 1964. After winning another pennant across town as manager of the Mets, he was the straight man during the Billy Martin-Reggie Jackson circus that was the Bronx Zoo era of the 1970s.
Despite a career spent seemingly entirely in pinstripes, Yogi stayed away for 15 years due to a long-running feud between him and George Steinbrenner. It started when Steinbrenner fired Yogi as manager 15 games into the 1984 season (despite promising he wouldn't) and didn't end until 1998, when Steinbrenner personally apologized to Yogi. From then on, Yogi Berra was once again a constant at Yankee Stadium, and we were all the better for it.
The timing of his return to the Yankees couldn't have been more perfect. Up until that time, it was always Joe DiMaggio who threw out the first pitch on Opening Day and was introduced last on Old-Timer's Day. Whenever DiMaggio was at the ballpark, you knew it was a big event. Joe DiMaggio died in January of 1999. Who threw out the first pitch on Opening Day that year? Yogi Berra. All had been forgiven. Yogi was back where he belonged. For the next 15 years, he'd be that guy. He took over that role from DiMaggio, and was the perfect man to do it. Despite the fact that Yogi was a little man, those are big shoes to fill.
And of course, Yogi had another something special up his sleeve. On July 18, 1999, the Yankees welcomed him back by celebrating "Yogi Berra Day" at the old Stadium. On that day, Don Larsen threw out the first pitch and Yogi caught it, recreating the scene of one of the iconic moments in all of baseball history--Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. So what happened on "Yogi Berra Day?" David Cone threw a perfect game against the Expos. What else?
That was one of the many special memories Yogi Berra would provide after his return to the Yankees. At the 2008 All-Star Game, Major League Baseball welcomed all living Hall of Famers onto the field for a pregame ceremony. The catchers were introduced last. And the last catcher announced was Yogi Berra. Later that season, as baseball and the Yankees said goodbye to the old Stadium, Yogi wore his uniform one last time and stood at home plate waving to an adoring crowd.
What most people remember about that final game was Derek Jeter's speech at the end. Evidently, that was Yogi's idea. It was supposed to be him, but he convinced Jeter to do it instead. Whether that story's true or not is irrelevant. Because Jeter giving the speech was the right call, and he nailed it. That final night at the House that Ruth Built couldn't have been more perfect.
After I went to see the Broadway play Bronx Bombers, where Yogi Berra is the main character, I argued that Yogi Berra was the only person they could make the main character and have the story make any semblance of sense. The final scene of that play takes place in the Yankees clubhouse on that night. It's just Yogi and Jeter. It's perfect. Because Yogi's relationship with Jeter was something special.
Everyone who knew Yogi Berra had their own humorous Yogi story, and a lot of them were shared yesterday. Ron Guidry called in to YES during the Yankees-Blue Jays game last night and talked about all the times he picked Yogi up from the airport during Spring Training. One time, Yogi was coming back from filming an AFLAC commercial and said to Guidry, "You know, that duck doesn't really talk." Ken Singleton then shared his Yogi story. So did Al Leiter. In the studio, Jack Curry told a story about Yogi giving directions back from somewhere, which were the exact reverse of the way they had gone there. When that was pointed out to Yogi, he replied, "I told you my way was faster."
It's probably that quote and the many others like it that made Yogi Berra so well known. Some have said that he's the most quoted figure of the 20th Century that wasn't a U.S. president. One of his most famous lines is, "I never said half the things I said." Well, according to Mets announcer Gary Cohen, that might actually be true. Yogi grew up on the same street in St. Louis as Joe Garagiola, who went on to a long broadcasting career. It's possible that Garagiola might've embellished some of these stories a little bit (or made them up entirely), so Yogi might actually be credited with "saying" things that he never actually said. To me, that doesn't matter. They'll always be Yogisms. (Between Yogi Berra and Casey Stengel, I don't know how anyone understood a single word that was said in the Yankees clubhouse during the 1950s.)
He became such a lovable figure later in life, that it's easy to forget Yogi Berra was a damn good ballplayer. He won three MVPs and got MVP votes a whopping 15 years in a row, led the Yankees in RBIs eight consecutive years at a time when they had Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle, and made the All-Star team 18 times. Then there are the World Series records that will never be touched: 75 games and 10 rings.
So much more than a Hall of Fame ballplayer, Yogi Berra is one of the most famous figures in all of American history. He was beloved by all, and his absence will definitely be felt by anyone he ever came in contact with (and those he didn't).
His most famous quote has got to be, "It ain't over til it's over." Well, I guess it's over. Goodbye, Yogi. You'll never be forgotten.
Yogi Berra was the link between the eras. His rookie year was 1946, when Joe DiMaggio was still the big man on campus. His prime coincided with the rise of the dynasty in the 1950s, when Mickey Mantle became the team's larger-than-life figure. Then in the 60s, he became the manager--and won the pennant in his first full season, 1964. After winning another pennant across town as manager of the Mets, he was the straight man during the Billy Martin-Reggie Jackson circus that was the Bronx Zoo era of the 1970s.
Despite a career spent seemingly entirely in pinstripes, Yogi stayed away for 15 years due to a long-running feud between him and George Steinbrenner. It started when Steinbrenner fired Yogi as manager 15 games into the 1984 season (despite promising he wouldn't) and didn't end until 1998, when Steinbrenner personally apologized to Yogi. From then on, Yogi Berra was once again a constant at Yankee Stadium, and we were all the better for it.
The timing of his return to the Yankees couldn't have been more perfect. Up until that time, it was always Joe DiMaggio who threw out the first pitch on Opening Day and was introduced last on Old-Timer's Day. Whenever DiMaggio was at the ballpark, you knew it was a big event. Joe DiMaggio died in January of 1999. Who threw out the first pitch on Opening Day that year? Yogi Berra. All had been forgiven. Yogi was back where he belonged. For the next 15 years, he'd be that guy. He took over that role from DiMaggio, and was the perfect man to do it. Despite the fact that Yogi was a little man, those are big shoes to fill.
And of course, Yogi had another something special up his sleeve. On July 18, 1999, the Yankees welcomed him back by celebrating "Yogi Berra Day" at the old Stadium. On that day, Don Larsen threw out the first pitch and Yogi caught it, recreating the scene of one of the iconic moments in all of baseball history--Larsen's perfect game in the 1956 World Series. So what happened on "Yogi Berra Day?" David Cone threw a perfect game against the Expos. What else?
That was one of the many special memories Yogi Berra would provide after his return to the Yankees. At the 2008 All-Star Game, Major League Baseball welcomed all living Hall of Famers onto the field for a pregame ceremony. The catchers were introduced last. And the last catcher announced was Yogi Berra. Later that season, as baseball and the Yankees said goodbye to the old Stadium, Yogi wore his uniform one last time and stood at home plate waving to an adoring crowd.
What most people remember about that final game was Derek Jeter's speech at the end. Evidently, that was Yogi's idea. It was supposed to be him, but he convinced Jeter to do it instead. Whether that story's true or not is irrelevant. Because Jeter giving the speech was the right call, and he nailed it. That final night at the House that Ruth Built couldn't have been more perfect.
After I went to see the Broadway play Bronx Bombers, where Yogi Berra is the main character, I argued that Yogi Berra was the only person they could make the main character and have the story make any semblance of sense. The final scene of that play takes place in the Yankees clubhouse on that night. It's just Yogi and Jeter. It's perfect. Because Yogi's relationship with Jeter was something special.
Everyone who knew Yogi Berra had their own humorous Yogi story, and a lot of them were shared yesterday. Ron Guidry called in to YES during the Yankees-Blue Jays game last night and talked about all the times he picked Yogi up from the airport during Spring Training. One time, Yogi was coming back from filming an AFLAC commercial and said to Guidry, "You know, that duck doesn't really talk." Ken Singleton then shared his Yogi story. So did Al Leiter. In the studio, Jack Curry told a story about Yogi giving directions back from somewhere, which were the exact reverse of the way they had gone there. When that was pointed out to Yogi, he replied, "I told you my way was faster."
It's probably that quote and the many others like it that made Yogi Berra so well known. Some have said that he's the most quoted figure of the 20th Century that wasn't a U.S. president. One of his most famous lines is, "I never said half the things I said." Well, according to Mets announcer Gary Cohen, that might actually be true. Yogi grew up on the same street in St. Louis as Joe Garagiola, who went on to a long broadcasting career. It's possible that Garagiola might've embellished some of these stories a little bit (or made them up entirely), so Yogi might actually be credited with "saying" things that he never actually said. To me, that doesn't matter. They'll always be Yogisms. (Between Yogi Berra and Casey Stengel, I don't know how anyone understood a single word that was said in the Yankees clubhouse during the 1950s.)
He became such a lovable figure later in life, that it's easy to forget Yogi Berra was a damn good ballplayer. He won three MVPs and got MVP votes a whopping 15 years in a row, led the Yankees in RBIs eight consecutive years at a time when they had Joe DiMaggio and Mickey Mantle, and made the All-Star team 18 times. Then there are the World Series records that will never be touched: 75 games and 10 rings.
So much more than a Hall of Fame ballplayer, Yogi Berra is one of the most famous figures in all of American history. He was beloved by all, and his absence will definitely be felt by anyone he ever came in contact with (and those he didn't).
His most famous quote has got to be, "It ain't over til it's over." Well, I guess it's over. Goodbye, Yogi. You'll never be forgotten.
Monday, September 21, 2015
October Pitching Questions
Even though there's two weeks left in the regular season, Major League Baseball's playoff picture is becoming more and more clear. Especially in the National League, where the five teams have been set for like a month now. (No need to freak out Mets fans, you don't have the 2007-08 Phillies on your tail, you're not gonna blow it this time.)
But just because we know the teams, there are still plenty of questions that need to be asked and answered before the wonderfulness of October baseball gets underway. Most of them involving pitching. Everybody needs to figure out their rotations, while the makeup of the bullpens could make the difference between losing the Division Series (cough, Tigers, cough) and getting to the World Series (Royals).
Let's start with the inevitable NL Wild Card Game matchup between the Cubs and the Pirates. Chicago has arguably the National League's best pitcher over the second half in Jake Arrieta. But they also spent a lot of money on Jon Lester in the offseason basically for this moment. Lester's won a World Series in Boston and started last year's AL Wild Card Game for Oakland. At least they have the "problem" of choosing between their two aces, but what if they're not a position to use either (which seems unlikely given the standings)? Same thing with Pittsburgh. Do they line up Gerrit Cole, their best pitcher overall, or Francisco Liriano, their best pitcher recently, to start the one-game playoff?
It's a worthwhile question. Because not only are you choosing your starter for the Wild Card Game, you're choosing which starter would pitch twice in the Division Series. That's a decision the Dodgers have to make, too. I'm sure it doesn't really make a difference to LA if Greinke or Kershaw starts Game 1 against the Mets, but they made the wrong decision against the Cardinals two years in a row and paid for it. (Personally, I'd start Greinke in Game 1 and Kershaw in Game 2, but where they are in their rotation might have a lot to do with it.) The Dodgers' real problem, though, is who's going to be their third starter? And do they only use three so that Greinke and Kershaw can both possibly start twice (leaving neither available for Game 1 of the NLCS)?
As for the Dodgers' opponent, the Mets have a problem that every team would love to have. They currently use a six-man rotation. They have to cut it down to four. Maybe the Matt Harvey innings thing (which is a situation I'm sure they didn't expect themselves to be in when Harvey was going eight innings in April) will solve this problem for them. But Harvey says he's ready to go for the postseason and Terry Collins has said he'll make at least one start, so that means he's in for the Division Series. You'd have to think Jacob de Grom, the Mets' second-best pitcher, is a lock, too. So is Bartolo Colon. He's developed a cult following and is the only Mets starter with playoff experience. Have to use him. So, that leaves Noah Syndergaard, Steven Matz and Jon Niese for one rotation spot. It's probably safe to say Niese is headed to the bullpen. The choice between Syndergaard and Matz isn't an easy one, but Syndergaard has proven himself all year, so you'd figure he'll get the opportunity.
Whoever gets home field for the Mets-Dodgers series could dictate a lot of things, too. Greinke and Kershaw are starting Games 1 & 2 in whatever order. Whether they're at Dodger Stadium or Citi Field doesn't matter. But for the Mets, that could be huge. Knowing that neither is pitching Game 3, do you hold Harvey back in case you're down 0-2? Likewise, Syndergaard is a much better pitcher at home. Do you set it up for him to pitch in Citi Field? If they end up tied, the Mets get home field since they won the season series 4-3. But if the Dodgers do get home field, I'd set up the Mets rotation like this: Games 1/5-Colon, Game 2-de Grom, Game 3-Harvey, Game 4-Syndergaard. If the series starts in New York, though, I'd go: Games 1/5-de Grom, Game 2-Syndergaard, Game 3-Harvey, Game 4-Colon.
Over in the American League, things are a little more unsettled. I'm confident in saying the Royals, Blue Jays and Yankees are in, but I've got no idea what's gonna happen in the AL West. If Houston ends up in the Wild Card Game, you'd assume they want Dallas Keuchel to start it if possible. Same thing with the Rangers and Cole Hamels. That's the reason they got him. Minnesota and the Angels, though? Beats me.
I say Houston would like to start Keuchel and Texas would like to start Hamels with the caveat that only one of them is going to end up in the Wild Card Game. And this division's gonna go down to the last day, so neither one will be able to hold a pitcher back for the potential one-game playoff. Should it get to the situation that Keuchel and Hamels are both unavailable, Houston would probably be in better shape for the Wild Card Game since they could start either Collin McHugh or Scott Kazmir. If Texas goes into Yankee Stadium with somebody other than Cole Hamels pitching, they'd better hope their hitters bring their bats.
The Yankees, of course, would prefer to have Masahiro Tanaka start the Wild Card Game (or, at the very worst, Michael Pineda). But Tanaka's missing his start on Wednesday in Toronto because he strained his hamstring running the bases on Friday. For the Yankees, it would almost be a good thing if the Blue Jays clinch the division earlier. That way they can set up Tanaka to pitch in the Wild Card Game, even if it means skipping his final regular-season start. And if the Yankees do win the Wild Card Game, the rotation for the Division Series seems to have settled itself out: Tanaka, Pineda, Sabathia and Severino.
Toronto, meanwhile, has a similar problem to the Yankees' crosstown neighbors. After David Price, who are their starters going to be? Assuming Drew Hutchison (who started on Opening Day, mind you) gets sent to the bullpen, they still have to choose three of their remaining four starters. Toronto loves Marcus Stroman, but he only just came back from a torn ACL and will have made about five starts before the postseason. He's looked great so far (but what Blue Jays pitcher hasn't looked great against the Yankees this season?), but, as much as you love him, how much can you count on Stroman to start in the playoffs? The Blue Jays have shrewdly kept Mark Buehrle from pitching against the Yankees this year, so I haven't seen that much of him, but he won a ring with the White Sox and is one of the few players on that team with any playoff experience. I say you've gotta start him. I'd leave Game 4 as TBA between R.A. Dickey and Marco Estrada, but if I were John Gibbons, I'd be leaning towards Estrada making that start. That also leaves open the possibility of Price on three-days' rest if need-be.
Two weeks is a lot of time in a baseball season. A lot can still change. And a lot of this stuff will probably sort itself out as divisions are clinched and teams set themselves up for the postseason. Hopefully not, but an injury may derail plans, too.
All I know is that if I'm this excited for playoff baseball now, imagine how I'll be come October!
But just because we know the teams, there are still plenty of questions that need to be asked and answered before the wonderfulness of October baseball gets underway. Most of them involving pitching. Everybody needs to figure out their rotations, while the makeup of the bullpens could make the difference between losing the Division Series (cough, Tigers, cough) and getting to the World Series (Royals).
Let's start with the inevitable NL Wild Card Game matchup between the Cubs and the Pirates. Chicago has arguably the National League's best pitcher over the second half in Jake Arrieta. But they also spent a lot of money on Jon Lester in the offseason basically for this moment. Lester's won a World Series in Boston and started last year's AL Wild Card Game for Oakland. At least they have the "problem" of choosing between their two aces, but what if they're not a position to use either (which seems unlikely given the standings)? Same thing with Pittsburgh. Do they line up Gerrit Cole, their best pitcher overall, or Francisco Liriano, their best pitcher recently, to start the one-game playoff?
It's a worthwhile question. Because not only are you choosing your starter for the Wild Card Game, you're choosing which starter would pitch twice in the Division Series. That's a decision the Dodgers have to make, too. I'm sure it doesn't really make a difference to LA if Greinke or Kershaw starts Game 1 against the Mets, but they made the wrong decision against the Cardinals two years in a row and paid for it. (Personally, I'd start Greinke in Game 1 and Kershaw in Game 2, but where they are in their rotation might have a lot to do with it.) The Dodgers' real problem, though, is who's going to be their third starter? And do they only use three so that Greinke and Kershaw can both possibly start twice (leaving neither available for Game 1 of the NLCS)?
As for the Dodgers' opponent, the Mets have a problem that every team would love to have. They currently use a six-man rotation. They have to cut it down to four. Maybe the Matt Harvey innings thing (which is a situation I'm sure they didn't expect themselves to be in when Harvey was going eight innings in April) will solve this problem for them. But Harvey says he's ready to go for the postseason and Terry Collins has said he'll make at least one start, so that means he's in for the Division Series. You'd have to think Jacob de Grom, the Mets' second-best pitcher, is a lock, too. So is Bartolo Colon. He's developed a cult following and is the only Mets starter with playoff experience. Have to use him. So, that leaves Noah Syndergaard, Steven Matz and Jon Niese for one rotation spot. It's probably safe to say Niese is headed to the bullpen. The choice between Syndergaard and Matz isn't an easy one, but Syndergaard has proven himself all year, so you'd figure he'll get the opportunity.
Whoever gets home field for the Mets-Dodgers series could dictate a lot of things, too. Greinke and Kershaw are starting Games 1 & 2 in whatever order. Whether they're at Dodger Stadium or Citi Field doesn't matter. But for the Mets, that could be huge. Knowing that neither is pitching Game 3, do you hold Harvey back in case you're down 0-2? Likewise, Syndergaard is a much better pitcher at home. Do you set it up for him to pitch in Citi Field? If they end up tied, the Mets get home field since they won the season series 4-3. But if the Dodgers do get home field, I'd set up the Mets rotation like this: Games 1/5-Colon, Game 2-de Grom, Game 3-Harvey, Game 4-Syndergaard. If the series starts in New York, though, I'd go: Games 1/5-de Grom, Game 2-Syndergaard, Game 3-Harvey, Game 4-Colon.
Over in the American League, things are a little more unsettled. I'm confident in saying the Royals, Blue Jays and Yankees are in, but I've got no idea what's gonna happen in the AL West. If Houston ends up in the Wild Card Game, you'd assume they want Dallas Keuchel to start it if possible. Same thing with the Rangers and Cole Hamels. That's the reason they got him. Minnesota and the Angels, though? Beats me.
I say Houston would like to start Keuchel and Texas would like to start Hamels with the caveat that only one of them is going to end up in the Wild Card Game. And this division's gonna go down to the last day, so neither one will be able to hold a pitcher back for the potential one-game playoff. Should it get to the situation that Keuchel and Hamels are both unavailable, Houston would probably be in better shape for the Wild Card Game since they could start either Collin McHugh or Scott Kazmir. If Texas goes into Yankee Stadium with somebody other than Cole Hamels pitching, they'd better hope their hitters bring their bats.
The Yankees, of course, would prefer to have Masahiro Tanaka start the Wild Card Game (or, at the very worst, Michael Pineda). But Tanaka's missing his start on Wednesday in Toronto because he strained his hamstring running the bases on Friday. For the Yankees, it would almost be a good thing if the Blue Jays clinch the division earlier. That way they can set up Tanaka to pitch in the Wild Card Game, even if it means skipping his final regular-season start. And if the Yankees do win the Wild Card Game, the rotation for the Division Series seems to have settled itself out: Tanaka, Pineda, Sabathia and Severino.
Toronto, meanwhile, has a similar problem to the Yankees' crosstown neighbors. After David Price, who are their starters going to be? Assuming Drew Hutchison (who started on Opening Day, mind you) gets sent to the bullpen, they still have to choose three of their remaining four starters. Toronto loves Marcus Stroman, but he only just came back from a torn ACL and will have made about five starts before the postseason. He's looked great so far (but what Blue Jays pitcher hasn't looked great against the Yankees this season?), but, as much as you love him, how much can you count on Stroman to start in the playoffs? The Blue Jays have shrewdly kept Mark Buehrle from pitching against the Yankees this year, so I haven't seen that much of him, but he won a ring with the White Sox and is one of the few players on that team with any playoff experience. I say you've gotta start him. I'd leave Game 4 as TBA between R.A. Dickey and Marco Estrada, but if I were John Gibbons, I'd be leaning towards Estrada making that start. That also leaves open the possibility of Price on three-days' rest if need-be.
Two weeks is a lot of time in a baseball season. A lot can still change. And a lot of this stuff will probably sort itself out as divisions are clinched and teams set themselves up for the postseason. Hopefully not, but an injury may derail plans, too.
All I know is that if I'm this excited for playoff baseball now, imagine how I'll be come October!
Sunday, September 20, 2015
2015 Football Picks, Week 2
Yes, I'm kinda late on releasing this week's football picks. It's a long story. But here we go with Week 2...
Thursday Night: Denver (Win)
Patriots (1-0) at Bills (1-0): New England-When there was still uncertainty about whether or not Tom Brady was going to play in the first four games, this one was tabbed as a potential New England loss without him. And it's understandable why. Because the Bills looked mighty impressive last week against the Colts. I also think it's hilarious that the Bills stirred the pot by having a sale on air pumps and putting them right in the front at the team store. Except adding fuel to the Patriots' fire isn't necessarily a good thing. It'll be close, but the Bills will become the first AFC East team to lose this season.
Cardinals (1-0) at Bears (0-1): Arizona-The Bears weren't as bad as I thought they'd be against the Packers last week. The Cardinals, meanwhile, had an impressive win over the Saints. I forgot that Arizona is a different team with Carson Palmer.We'll see how they do on the road this week. I've got confidence, though.
Chargers (1-0) at Bengals (1-0): Cincinnati-Was there any team more impressive last week than Cincinnati? Sure, they were playing the Raiders, but the Bengals went on the road (to a place they hadn't won in a long time) and were completely dominant. Now they head home to take on a San Diego team that has traditionally had trouble with 1:00 starts.
Titans (1-0) at Browns (0-1): Tennessee-Marcus Mariota had quite a debut, didn't he? We obviously can't put him in the Hall of Fame yet, but he was certainly as good as advertised, and there's no question who won the battle of No. 1 vs. No. 2. The 2014 Heisman winner knocked of 2013 Heisman winner Jamies Winston in Week 1. Now he gets Johnny Overrated, the 2012 winner, and the Browns in Week 2. Cleveland's not a good team, and Manziel at quarterback doesn't make them better. I think the Titans equal their entire 2014 win total in Week 2.
Lions (0-1) at Vikings (0-1): Minnesota-Neither team's trip to California went well. But, the Lions at least had something resembling an offense in San Diego. Minnesota was tabbed as a sleeper playoff team with Teddy Bridgewater and the return of Adrian Peterson. Where were they in San Francisco? Three points! For an offense with Adrian Peterson! Pathetic! Like I said last week, the Vikings are gonna need to make me believe. Regardless, I do think they get a home win here.
Buccaneers (0-1) at Saints (0-1): New Orleans-Famous Jamies hits the road for the first time and will have to be significantly better than he was in Week 1. Problem is, the Saints are really good at home. New Orleans wins it.
Falcons (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Giants-So, as it turns out, Eli Manning isn't the best at late game clock management. Either that or math. Because of their quarterback's stupidity, the Giants would up losing a game they had no business winning in the first place, but were certainly in position to. They absolutely need to rebound against the Falcons in the home opener, or this could end up being a long season at the Meadowlands.
49ers (1-0) at Steelers (0-1): Pittsburgh-It seems like Pittsburgh hasn't played all season, doesn't it? Last Thursday was so long ago. The 49ers, meanwhile, played the second game on Monday night and now have to fly cross-country for an early game against a good Steelers team. All of that amounts to a Steelers win.
Rams (1-0) at Redskins (0-1): St. Louis-Of all the surprising results last week (and there weren't many), I think St. Louis over Seattle is probably the one that caught people off guard the most. Not me. I had a feeling the Rams would keep that one tight, so it wasn't totally out of the blue to see them win that. St. Louis has a chance to go 2-0 against a Washington team that still needs to figure a lot of things out. Nick Foles' experience playing the Redskins when he was with the Eagles will pay off here, too.
Texans (0-1) at Panthers (1-0): Houston-This is officially the hardest game of the week to pick. The Texans outplayed last week against Kansas City, especially early. That's why the Chiefs went into Houston and got a win. The Panthers, meanwhile, beat Jacksonville. They're gonna have to show me more. The Texans will be more prepared this week and the Panthers will be out of whack defensively without Kuechly. As a result, I like Houston in this one.
Ravens (0-1) at Raiders (0-1): Baltimore-Does anyone actually think the Raiders will beat the Ravens? No. I didn't think so. And you can't even use the back-to-back trips west as a reason why Oakland might pull the upset. Because the Ravens stayed out west after their game in Denver and trained in San Jose all week.
Dolphins (1-0) at Jaguars (0-1): Miami-Florida has one NFL team, one quasi-NFL team, and one glorified college team. The NFL team plays the glorified college team this week. Which one do you think will win? The AFC East ain't getting its first non-division loss here.
Cowboys (1-0) at Eagles (0-1): Dallas-Oh man, you've got Dallas, which was lucky to escape last week in a game they tried to hand to the Giants, but Eli insisted they take back. And you've got Philadelphia, which is in the opposite situation. The Eagles lost to a Falcons team they're probably better than, and now face the prospect of falling to 0-2. Despite the loss of Dez Bryant essentially for the year, Dallas has the weapons to make-do without him. They went undefeated on the road last year too (well, until that playoff game in Green Bay). That's the main reason why I'm going with the Cowboys.
Seahawks (0-1) at Packers (1-0): Green Bay-A rematch of last year's NFC Championship Game that suddenly has a lot more urgency for Seattle after that Week 1 loss in St. Louis. The Seahawks obviously don't want to go home 0-2, but that possibility is staring them directly in the face. You think the Packers forget the NFC title game? They've got their chance for revenge, and they're gonna take it. A win here could be big come January.
Jets (1-0) at Colts (0-1): Indianapolis-In this week's Super Bowl rematch, we go back to one of the greatest upsets in Super Bowl history, the 3rd edition with Joe Namath's guarantee. The modern-day Jets and Colts come in here with very different Week 1 experiences. The Jets played Cleveland at home, which was virtually a guaranteed win. The Colts went into Buffalo expecting a victory, but were punched in the gut by Rex Ryan's new-look Bills. The Indianapolis offense will definitely recover at home, and this will be a real test to see how good the Jets actually are. Indy can afford 0-2 more than some other leading Super Bowl contenders, but they're not gonna have to worry about it.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-5
Season: 12-5
Thursday Night: Denver (Win)
Patriots (1-0) at Bills (1-0): New England-When there was still uncertainty about whether or not Tom Brady was going to play in the first four games, this one was tabbed as a potential New England loss without him. And it's understandable why. Because the Bills looked mighty impressive last week against the Colts. I also think it's hilarious that the Bills stirred the pot by having a sale on air pumps and putting them right in the front at the team store. Except adding fuel to the Patriots' fire isn't necessarily a good thing. It'll be close, but the Bills will become the first AFC East team to lose this season.
Cardinals (1-0) at Bears (0-1): Arizona-The Bears weren't as bad as I thought they'd be against the Packers last week. The Cardinals, meanwhile, had an impressive win over the Saints. I forgot that Arizona is a different team with Carson Palmer.We'll see how they do on the road this week. I've got confidence, though.
Chargers (1-0) at Bengals (1-0): Cincinnati-Was there any team more impressive last week than Cincinnati? Sure, they were playing the Raiders, but the Bengals went on the road (to a place they hadn't won in a long time) and were completely dominant. Now they head home to take on a San Diego team that has traditionally had trouble with 1:00 starts.
Titans (1-0) at Browns (0-1): Tennessee-Marcus Mariota had quite a debut, didn't he? We obviously can't put him in the Hall of Fame yet, but he was certainly as good as advertised, and there's no question who won the battle of No. 1 vs. No. 2. The 2014 Heisman winner knocked of 2013 Heisman winner Jamies Winston in Week 1. Now he gets Johnny Overrated, the 2012 winner, and the Browns in Week 2. Cleveland's not a good team, and Manziel at quarterback doesn't make them better. I think the Titans equal their entire 2014 win total in Week 2.
Lions (0-1) at Vikings (0-1): Minnesota-Neither team's trip to California went well. But, the Lions at least had something resembling an offense in San Diego. Minnesota was tabbed as a sleeper playoff team with Teddy Bridgewater and the return of Adrian Peterson. Where were they in San Francisco? Three points! For an offense with Adrian Peterson! Pathetic! Like I said last week, the Vikings are gonna need to make me believe. Regardless, I do think they get a home win here.
Buccaneers (0-1) at Saints (0-1): New Orleans-Famous Jamies hits the road for the first time and will have to be significantly better than he was in Week 1. Problem is, the Saints are really good at home. New Orleans wins it.
Falcons (1-0) at Giants (0-1): Giants-So, as it turns out, Eli Manning isn't the best at late game clock management. Either that or math. Because of their quarterback's stupidity, the Giants would up losing a game they had no business winning in the first place, but were certainly in position to. They absolutely need to rebound against the Falcons in the home opener, or this could end up being a long season at the Meadowlands.
49ers (1-0) at Steelers (0-1): Pittsburgh-It seems like Pittsburgh hasn't played all season, doesn't it? Last Thursday was so long ago. The 49ers, meanwhile, played the second game on Monday night and now have to fly cross-country for an early game against a good Steelers team. All of that amounts to a Steelers win.
Rams (1-0) at Redskins (0-1): St. Louis-Of all the surprising results last week (and there weren't many), I think St. Louis over Seattle is probably the one that caught people off guard the most. Not me. I had a feeling the Rams would keep that one tight, so it wasn't totally out of the blue to see them win that. St. Louis has a chance to go 2-0 against a Washington team that still needs to figure a lot of things out. Nick Foles' experience playing the Redskins when he was with the Eagles will pay off here, too.
Texans (0-1) at Panthers (1-0): Houston-This is officially the hardest game of the week to pick. The Texans outplayed last week against Kansas City, especially early. That's why the Chiefs went into Houston and got a win. The Panthers, meanwhile, beat Jacksonville. They're gonna have to show me more. The Texans will be more prepared this week and the Panthers will be out of whack defensively without Kuechly. As a result, I like Houston in this one.
Ravens (0-1) at Raiders (0-1): Baltimore-Does anyone actually think the Raiders will beat the Ravens? No. I didn't think so. And you can't even use the back-to-back trips west as a reason why Oakland might pull the upset. Because the Ravens stayed out west after their game in Denver and trained in San Jose all week.
Dolphins (1-0) at Jaguars (0-1): Miami-Florida has one NFL team, one quasi-NFL team, and one glorified college team. The NFL team plays the glorified college team this week. Which one do you think will win? The AFC East ain't getting its first non-division loss here.
Cowboys (1-0) at Eagles (0-1): Dallas-Oh man, you've got Dallas, which was lucky to escape last week in a game they tried to hand to the Giants, but Eli insisted they take back. And you've got Philadelphia, which is in the opposite situation. The Eagles lost to a Falcons team they're probably better than, and now face the prospect of falling to 0-2. Despite the loss of Dez Bryant essentially for the year, Dallas has the weapons to make-do without him. They went undefeated on the road last year too (well, until that playoff game in Green Bay). That's the main reason why I'm going with the Cowboys.
Seahawks (0-1) at Packers (1-0): Green Bay-A rematch of last year's NFC Championship Game that suddenly has a lot more urgency for Seattle after that Week 1 loss in St. Louis. The Seahawks obviously don't want to go home 0-2, but that possibility is staring them directly in the face. You think the Packers forget the NFC title game? They've got their chance for revenge, and they're gonna take it. A win here could be big come January.
Jets (1-0) at Colts (0-1): Indianapolis-In this week's Super Bowl rematch, we go back to one of the greatest upsets in Super Bowl history, the 3rd edition with Joe Namath's guarantee. The modern-day Jets and Colts come in here with very different Week 1 experiences. The Jets played Cleveland at home, which was virtually a guaranteed win. The Colts went into Buffalo expecting a victory, but were punched in the gut by Rex Ryan's new-look Bills. The Indianapolis offense will definitely recover at home, and this will be a real test to see how good the Jets actually are. Indy can afford 0-2 more than some other leading Super Bowl contenders, but they're not gonna have to worry about it.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-5
Season: 12-5
Friday, September 18, 2015
Yankees Town? Mets Town? Baseball Town!
When Major League Baseball's schedule makers decided that the second half of this year's Subway Series wouldn't take place until mid-September, there's no way they could've known how big it would actually be for both teams. The Mets aren't just in first place, they're running away with the NL East. The Yankees, meanwhile, currently hold the first AL wild card and are trying to catch the first-place Blue Jays in the AL East.
It's been a while since they were both good this late in the season. They've only both made the playoffs in the same year three times, of course famously meeting in the 2000 World Series. The last time was in 2006, when the Yankees lost to the Tigers in the ALDS and the Mets lost in seven to the Cardinals in the NLCS. This year certainly looks like it'll be the fourth time New York has had both of its current baseball teams playing in October.
All of this has led to the inevitable back-and-forth between the fans of each team claiming this is either a "Mets town" or a "Yankees town." Since they're never good at the same time (except in 1999-2000), it definitely seems like one is favored more, then it flips and the other is more popular. The truth is somewhere in the middle, though. In a city of 8 million people, there's plenty of room for two teams.
I'm sure this will probably be taken with a grain of salt because my Yankee fandom is well-advertised, but even the most die-hard Mets fan would have a hard time convincing a neutral observer that the National League side is New York's more popular team. I doubt they would even believe that themselves. Which is not meant as a knock on the Mets at all. Fans of the A's and Angels would undoubtedly have to make the same concession, although don't tell White Sox fans that Chicago loves the Cubs more (even though it's true).
The Yankees are the most successful team in the history of North American professional sports. They're also probably the most famous. Their history goes back more than a century, and seemingly every legendary figure ever to play baseball wore Yankee pinstripes. The Yankees have been in families for generations. And their fanbase isn't just limited to New York. What team leads the Majors in road attendance every year? The Yankees. Their fans are everywhere.
And let's not forget, it was the Yankees' popularity in the '50s that drove the Giants and Dodgers out of town. The Mets only came into existence as a replacement for the two National League teams that left. They have fans, a lot of whom they inherited from the Giants and Dodgers, that go back to that original team in 1962, so there are plenty of people who've been Mets fans for a long time, too. (There are probably some people who can still remember the Mets' first-ever game, while it's impossible for anybody living to have been a Yankees fan from the beginning.)
Even things like attendance and TV ratings suggest that the Yankees are the bigger draw. Yankee Stadium is larger than Citi Field and is usually full or pretty close to it. The Yankees normally lead or rank near the top of the American League in attendance. Same thing with their ratings on YES. Both of those figures blow the Mets' numbers out of the water. The attendance at Citi Field and ratings on SNY this season are the best they've been in years. Not coincidentally, they both went up once the Mets started winning.
Don't get me wrong. None of this is meant to say "the Yankees are better than the Mets" or "Yankees fans are better than Mets fans," They're just numbers. Numbers which seemingly prove that, on the surface, the Yankees are the more popular team. Again, this isn't a knock on the Mets. New York is a town with two teams for a reason. It's only natural that one's going to be more popular than the other. The Mets know it. And you know what, they're fine with it. The Giants are more popular than the Jets and the Rangers are more popular than the Islanders, too. That's just the way it is. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Personally, I think all of this is great. I'm probably in the minority among Yankees fans, but I don't dislike the Mets. When they're not playing the Yankees, I want them to do well, and I enjoy it when they do. It's so much better when the Mets are good and their fans show passion. You know something else? They're fun to watch, too. I've bought in on these 2015 Mets. And that doesn't make me any less of a Yankees fan, either.
What all of this proves is that Yankees, Mets, it doesn't matter. New York is a BASEBALL town. And it's great. All three games this weekend have been sold out for weeks, and the cheapest ticket you can get on StubHub is $50 for standing-room only (for an actual seat you're looking at $60 or more). The atmosphere at Citi Field is going to be awesome all weekend.
There's no need for Yankees fans and Mets fans to argue over which one is New York's "team." Because they both are. This season has proven that.
It's been a while since they were both good this late in the season. They've only both made the playoffs in the same year three times, of course famously meeting in the 2000 World Series. The last time was in 2006, when the Yankees lost to the Tigers in the ALDS and the Mets lost in seven to the Cardinals in the NLCS. This year certainly looks like it'll be the fourth time New York has had both of its current baseball teams playing in October.
All of this has led to the inevitable back-and-forth between the fans of each team claiming this is either a "Mets town" or a "Yankees town." Since they're never good at the same time (except in 1999-2000), it definitely seems like one is favored more, then it flips and the other is more popular. The truth is somewhere in the middle, though. In a city of 8 million people, there's plenty of room for two teams.
I'm sure this will probably be taken with a grain of salt because my Yankee fandom is well-advertised, but even the most die-hard Mets fan would have a hard time convincing a neutral observer that the National League side is New York's more popular team. I doubt they would even believe that themselves. Which is not meant as a knock on the Mets at all. Fans of the A's and Angels would undoubtedly have to make the same concession, although don't tell White Sox fans that Chicago loves the Cubs more (even though it's true).
The Yankees are the most successful team in the history of North American professional sports. They're also probably the most famous. Their history goes back more than a century, and seemingly every legendary figure ever to play baseball wore Yankee pinstripes. The Yankees have been in families for generations. And their fanbase isn't just limited to New York. What team leads the Majors in road attendance every year? The Yankees. Their fans are everywhere.
And let's not forget, it was the Yankees' popularity in the '50s that drove the Giants and Dodgers out of town. The Mets only came into existence as a replacement for the two National League teams that left. They have fans, a lot of whom they inherited from the Giants and Dodgers, that go back to that original team in 1962, so there are plenty of people who've been Mets fans for a long time, too. (There are probably some people who can still remember the Mets' first-ever game, while it's impossible for anybody living to have been a Yankees fan from the beginning.)
Even things like attendance and TV ratings suggest that the Yankees are the bigger draw. Yankee Stadium is larger than Citi Field and is usually full or pretty close to it. The Yankees normally lead or rank near the top of the American League in attendance. Same thing with their ratings on YES. Both of those figures blow the Mets' numbers out of the water. The attendance at Citi Field and ratings on SNY this season are the best they've been in years. Not coincidentally, they both went up once the Mets started winning.
Don't get me wrong. None of this is meant to say "the Yankees are better than the Mets" or "Yankees fans are better than Mets fans," They're just numbers. Numbers which seemingly prove that, on the surface, the Yankees are the more popular team. Again, this isn't a knock on the Mets. New York is a town with two teams for a reason. It's only natural that one's going to be more popular than the other. The Mets know it. And you know what, they're fine with it. The Giants are more popular than the Jets and the Rangers are more popular than the Islanders, too. That's just the way it is. And there's nothing wrong with that.
Personally, I think all of this is great. I'm probably in the minority among Yankees fans, but I don't dislike the Mets. When they're not playing the Yankees, I want them to do well, and I enjoy it when they do. It's so much better when the Mets are good and their fans show passion. You know something else? They're fun to watch, too. I've bought in on these 2015 Mets. And that doesn't make me any less of a Yankees fan, either.
What all of this proves is that Yankees, Mets, it doesn't matter. New York is a BASEBALL town. And it's great. All three games this weekend have been sold out for weeks, and the cheapest ticket you can get on StubHub is $50 for standing-room only (for an actual seat you're looking at $60 or more). The atmosphere at Citi Field is going to be awesome all weekend.
There's no need for Yankees fans and Mets fans to argue over which one is New York's "team." Because they both are. This season has proven that.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)