MLB's Super Sized Postseason

As one postseason ends (what a tremendous job the NHL did with every element of the Stanley Cup Playoffs), another one is set to begin.  Remarkably, Baseball made it through the 60-game regular season.  Now it's time for the expanded postseason, something that I'm still not a fan of in a full season (we don't need 83-79 teams being rewarded for their mediocrity over the previous six months).  But for this 60-game sprint, I get it.  Although, if you look at the seedings, the six division winners very well might've been there after 162 games, too.

From the 16-team field to the best-of-three Wild Card Series to the neutral sites to the lack of off days, this postseason will be unlike any other.  Because of that, I've decided to do my MLB playoff preview a little differently, too.  Instead of breaking down each series and picking a World Series winner, I've decided to rank the teams in order of how likely I think it is that they'll end up as World Series champions.  Because, let's face it, some of these teams aren't anywhere near the same class as others.

16. Brewers: Milwaukee went 29-31 this season, but snuck into the playoffs as the No. 8 seed in the National League.  They're like that 36-46 NBA team that gets the 8-seed in the Eastern Conference and promptly gets swept in the first round.  Same thing will happen here.  Does anyone really think the Brewers are gonna take two out of three at Dodger Stadium against a 43-17 juggernaut that will have Walker Buehler and Clayton Kershaw pitching?  I didn't think so.

15. Astros: You take away their garbage can, and suddenly the Astros hitters turn into mere mortals.  Great job by Dusty Baker getting Houston back to the playoffs, but they only backed into a spot because second-place teams were guaranteed one.  Seriously, they finished below .500 in a terrible division!  With a number of key players set to become free agents after this season, this will likely be the last hurrah for the defending AL champs.

14. Marlins: Every time the Marlins qualify for the playoffs, they win the World Series!  So, let's congratulate a team that's never won its division on its third championship!  In all seriousness, though, it's remarkable that the Marlins made it after everything they've gone through this season.  Although, sadly, they'll likely no longer be undefeated in postseason series by the end of October (probably by the end of the week actually).

13. Cardinals: Just like the Marlins, the Cardinals made the postseason against all odds after having to deal with their own COVID outbreak this season.  And now that St. Louis is in the playoffs, they'll be a very tough out.  As usual.  However, I don't think the Cardinals are deep enough in a very top-heavy National League.  In fact, I'd be surprised if they beat the Padres.

12. Blue Jays: A third team that made the playoffs after overcoming some extraordinary circumstances this season.  Although, if any team's built for a bubble, it's the one that hasn't been home since July.  The Blue Jays are ahead of schedule in their rebuild, but playing division rival Tampa Bay at Tropicana Field won't be easy.  Against another team, I'd like Toronto's offense to maybe pull an upset.  But not against Rays pitching.
  
11. Reds: Cincinnati was that sleeper team that people thought might be good this season.  And they're perhaps the lower-seeded team most capable of a Wild Card Series surprise.  Why?  Because they've got three really good starting pitchers.  If they can keep the Braves in the ballpark and hit some homers of their own, look out!  I don't think that strategy will work for three rounds, though.

10. White Sox: This time last week, the White Sox were the No. 2 seed in the AL.  They're still playing in the 2-7 series, but on the road!  If the team that ended the season on an eight-game losing streak shows up, they'll be back on the South Side by the weekend.  If the team that played the season's first 52 games does, they could go all the way.  They might get swept in the Wild Card Series.  They might end up in the ALCS.  Either way, it seems unlikely they'll reach the World Series.

9. Twins: We came thisclose to another postseason series between the Twins and their perennial foil, the Yankees.  But alas, Minnesota didn't just avoid the Yankees, they won the division, which means they get to play their Wild Card Series at Target Field, where they went 24-7 this season.  At the very least, the Twins should earn their first postseason win since 2003 (the Marlins have won a postseason game more recently than Minnesota).  A World Series berth is possible, but one thing at a time.  Let them win a game, then a series first.

8. Athletics: If not for Minnesota's playoff woes, we'd be talking about the A's and their lack of postseason success.  That could change this season, though.  Because Oakland, which has been surprisingly good for a few years now, put it all together and wrestled the AL West crown away from the Astros.  And they're plenty capable of making a deep run, even though it'll likely fall short of the World Series.  (Although, as I said earlier, I can just as easily see the White Sox winning that series.)

7. Padres: After San Diego's electric regular season, what do the Padres have in store for their first playoff appearance in 14 years (the 2007 NL Wild Card Game against Colorado was a tiebreaker, so it doesn't count)?  As you know, I've been high on the Padres all season.  And they made moves at the deadline to set themselves up for the playoffs.  Only to see two of those additions--Mike Clevinger and Mitch Moreland--go down with injuries.  Which leaves San Diego with the team it had for most of the season, which is still pretty damn good!  Good enough to beat the Dodgers in the Division Series, though?  Probably not.

6. Cubs: Don't sleep on the Cubs.  They've got plenty of star power and plenty of postseason experience.  Most importantly, they've got the starting pitching, which takes on extra significance this year.  Although, Yu Darvish will have to pitch the way he did in the 2020 regular season, not the way he has in his previous postseason appearances.  Throw in co-ace Kyle Hedricks and grizzled veteran Jon Lester, and that's as good as any rotation in the National League east of Los Angeles.  If nothing else, the Cubs should make MLB history as the first team ever to win a playoff series against the Marlins.

5. Indians: Shane Bieber, Carlos Carrasco and Zach Plesac.  They're the reason Cleveland was the team nobody wanted to draw as their postseason opponent.  And the Indians will go as far as that pitching trio will take them.  Which could be pretty far.  Especially if Jose Ramirez, Francisco Lindor and Franmil Reyes hit the way they can.  The Indians and Yankees, in fact, are very similar.  Whoever wins that series could easily win the pennant.

4. Yankees: Talk about a streaky team.  The Yankees started 16-6, then lost 15 of 20, then won 10 straight, then lost six of their last eight.  So it really depends on which team shows up.  Because everyone agrees that they can beat anybody if the one that went 10-0 shows up.  And Gerrit Cole is pitching like the ace he's paid to be.  Although, one of the craziest things about this Yankees team is that they were so good at home and so terrible on the road.  And it's because of that that they'll have to go on the road.  They could easily lose to the Indians.  They could just as easily get hot and make their way to Arlington for the World Series.

3. Rays: It's a great time to be a Tampa Bay sports fan.  The Lightning just won the Stanley Cup, the Bucs are in first place, and the Rays are coming off arguably the best season in franchise history.  They went 40-20 and enter the playoffs as the favorites for the AL pennant.  They'll only have their biggest advantage--Tropicana Field--in the first round, but the Rays were such an adept road team that the playoffs being played mainly at neutral sites shouldn't faze them much.  They've got the pitching to beat anybody.  The question is: Will they hit enough?
 
2. Braves: In my opinion, there's only one team in the National League that belongs in the same conversation as the Dodgers.  And that team is Atlanta.  Sure, the Braves have some question marks in the starting rotation, but they have an incredibly strong bullpen and we all know how good their lineup is.  They'll score plenty, so the pitching staff's job is really just to make sure the Braves outscore their opponent.  It's been a long time since they've won a playoff series, and Cincinnati is a tough draw.  If they get by the Reds, though, the Braves have all the tools to play deep into October.

1. Dodgers: The Dodgers have had a singular focus for the past few seasons.  We all know what that is, so I don't need to say it.  And this season they played like what they are--the best team in baseball.  It really is a shame that we didn't get to see what they might do over the course of 162 games.  Because they might've challenged the MLB record of 116 wins.  It's seriously kinda unfair how much better the Dodgers are than everybody else, and adding Mookie Betts only made them better.  They aren't just the favorites.  They're the overwhelming favorites.  It's not just World Series or bust.  It's World Series title or bust.  After some close calls and painful playoff losses in recent years, it's finally time.  The 32-year championship drought will come to an end.  The Dodgers are simply too good.

NFL 2020, Week 3

Seriously, how good are the prime time games this week?!  Packers-Saints in a rematch of that great playoff game on Sunday night, then the best Monday night matchup ESPN has had in years with Chiefs-Ravens (which evidently the NFL's reward for how well the virtual draft went).  Those two are such good games, in fact, that I'm willing to overlook the fact they subjected us to Dolphins-Jaguars on Thursday.

Thursday Night: Jacksonville (Loss)

Bears (2-0) at Falcons (0-2): Chicago-They haven't exactly run the NFL gauntlet, but the Bears are 2-0 after victories over the Lions and Giants.  The Falcons, meanwhile, decided that they didn't actually want to win last week in Dallas, so they didn't.  (How else can you explain why they socially distanced themselves from the football in the fourth quarter?)  That's the type of loss that can cost you later in the season, especially in an NFC South that projects to be very competitive at the top.  The question is: Will they fall to 0-3?

Rams (2-0) at Bills (2-0): Rams-The Rams didn't just go into Philadelphia and beat the Eagles last week.  They went into Philadelphia and CRUSHED the Eagles!  Now they make their second straight cross-country trip for a matchup with the Bills.  Buffalo is 2-0, but this is their first real test after playing the Jets and Dolphins in their first two games.  Let's see if the back-to-back 1:00 games have any impact on the Rams.  I'm guessing no.

Washington (1-1) at Browns (1-1): Cleveland-It's hard to judge both of these teams.  The Browns got crushed in Baltimore, then rebounded to beat the Bengals four days later.  Washington, meanwhile, upset Philadelphia in its opener before losing in Arizona.  So I still can't really put my finger on what I think the future holds for either one.  Since the game is in Cleveland, I'll go with the Browns.

Titans (2-0) at Vikings (0-2): Tennessee-What happened to the Minnesota Vikings?  They were a popular pick to make the playoffs, maybe even win the NFC North.  Yet through two games, they look nothing like one.  They had no defense in Week 1 against Green Bay, and their offense forgot to travel to Indianapolis last week.  Now they take on a Titans team that has won both of its games by a combined five points.  But, hey 2-0 is 2-0!  The Vikings really need this one, but I think Ryan Tannehill does his thing again and game manages Tennessee to another victory.

Raiders (2-0) at Patriots (1-1): New England-Allegiant Stadium is gorgeous!  I think I may even like it better than SoFi.  I can only imagine what it'll be like once the Black Hole fills it up!  Anyway, that was an impressive win over the Saints, a team nobody thought they would beat.  Was it a statement win?  It might've been.  If they follow it with a win in New England it definitely would be.  And, I couldn't let this fun fact pass me by: the last time Jon Gruden took the Raiders into Foxboro, a dynasty was born.  Yes, that's right, Gruden's last game in New England as Raiders coach was the Tuck Rule Game!

49ers (1-1) at Giants (0-2): San Francisco-After seeing virtually their entire starting lineup injured against the Jets, the 49ers return to the scene of the crime for a matchup with the Giants.  The Giants, of course, have a major injury of their own to deal with, as Saquon Barkley tore his ACL and is lost for the season.  Seeing as 85 percent of the Giants' offense runs through him, that's really going to be problematic.  Especially since they scored only 16 and 13 points in their first two games.

Bengals (0-2) at Eagles (0-2): Philadelphia-There isn't a single person who thought the Eagles would enter this game at 0-2.  The most common prediction was that they'd be 2-0 when they faced Cincinnati.  The Bengals, I must say, are significantly better.  They lost each of their first two games, but were competitive in both and arguably should've won both (especially the Charger game).  They'll keep this one close, too, but it's almost a must-win for Philly.  They know they can't start 0-3, and they'll play like it.

Texans (0-2) at Steelers (2-0): Pittsburgh-Has any team had it tougher than Houston to start the season?  The Texans are 0-2 through absolutely no fault of their own.  They just had the unfortunate task of playing the Chiefs, then the Raiders.  It doesn't get any easier this week, as they have to travel to Pittsburgh for a matchup with the resurgent Steelers.  The good thing is that, even if they lose and fall to 0-3, their three hardest games will be out of the way, so the playoffs are still a real possibility.

Jets (0-2) at Colts (1-1): Indianapolis-Most NFL power rankings have the Jets at either No. 31 or 32 after the first two games.  Understandably so, since their offense was virtually nonexistent against the Bills and 49ers.  Now they go to Indianapolis, where the Colts rebounded nicely after that surprising loss to Jacksonville by dominating Minnesota last week.  Has Phillip Rivers found his groove with his new team?  Perhaps.  In any case, they can't afford a letdown against a team they should beat.

Panthers (0-2) at Chargers (1-1): Chargers-Do you also think the Chargers' team doctor wanted Justin Herbert to play so bad that he intentionally committed malpractice by injuring Tyrod Taylor?  I'm not sure Taylor gets the starting job back.  Because Herbert sure looked like he belongs against the Chiefs.  So what if the Chargers lost!  Herbert should get his first NFL victory this week, as lowly Carolina pays a visit to SoFi Stadium.

Buccaneers (1-1) at Broncos (0-2): Tampa Bay-At some point, Denver's gonna have to hold on to one of those fourth quarter leads, right?  That was their problem last season, and it's been the same story so far in 2020, as the Broncos suffered one-possession losses to Tennessee and Pittsburgh.  Now their old friend Tom Brady visits.  And I think this week will be more of the same for the Broncos.  Denver has the lead in the fourth quarter, but Brady marches the Bucs down for the game-winning field goal in the last minute.

Lions (0-2) at Cardinals (2-0): Arizona-Last season, these two met in the opener, and Kyler Murray led that crazy comeback that resulted in the game ending in a tie.  It was then that the Cardinals knew they have someone special on their hands.  And he's continued to live up to the hype ever since.  To the tune of an impressive 2-0 start this season.  Make that 3-0, as they take on a Lions team that hasn't looked very good at all so far.

Cowboys (1-1) at Seahawks (2-0): Seattle-Is it too early to start the Russell Wilson for MVP talk?  Because he's been outstanding in Seattle's first two games.  He'll need to keep it up, too.  Because the NFC West is loaded!  It's a good thing the Cowboys managed to come back last week.  They didn't want to be 0-2 while making their second West Coast trip in the season's first three weeks.  Although, the Cowboys won the last time they went to Seattle, and with no fans in attendance, the 12th Man obviously can't have an impact.  This should be one of the best games of the week.  And the winner will have a potentially important playoff tiebreaker.

Packers (2-0) at Saints (1-1): New Orleans-At the end of the game last Monday night when it was clear the Raiders were going to win, Steve Levy spouted off the most fascinating stat.  As good as they've been over the past few years, they haven't started 2-0 since 2013, which is just crazy!  Also crazy is the amount of points the Green Bay Packers have put up in their first two games.  Look for a shootout in the Superdome.  This could be one of those games where whoever has the ball last wins.

Chiefs (2-0) at Ravens (2-0): Kansas City-Saving the best for last!  I just wish this game was later in the season.  Not only is it the defending Super Bowl champions against the team that had the best record in the league last season, you've got the last two MVPs (and new faces of the league).  Remember that Monday night game the Chiefs played against the Rams at the LA Coliseum a few years ago?  I think this one can be just as classic as that one!  And the winner will have a huge edge, knowing that they'll have the tiebreaker over the other.  I know it's early, but could this determine AFC home field (and the only AFC bye)?  Quite possibly.  Either way, this game should be awfully entertaining.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 13-3
Season: 26-7

Autumn In Paris

I'm still amazed at how well the US Open went.  They weren't just able to pull it off, they pulled it off perfectly!  The tournament went off without a hitch, and the tennis was better than I expected.  Sure, it would've been better if fans were there, but there was no shortage of intensity without them.  Best of all, it didn't feel watered-down at all, which was a concern for some heading in.

Now we move on to the rescheduled French Open, which will be vastly different.  They'll have fans in attendance.  The number has gradually been reduced.  It was originally going to be 11,500 a day, then 5,000, and now it's been reduced further to 1,000 per day.  The prospect of having fans is both exciting and scary for the players, but they just pulled off the Tour de France successfully, so we'll see how it goes.

This French Open will be vastly different for a number of other reasons, too.  The biggest change, of course, is the time of year in which it's being played.  Instead of late spring, it's being played in early autumn.  That means cooler temperatures and, perhaps more importantly, less light.  Although, that's less of an issue than it would've been in years past, since they'll have lights on four courts for the first time, and the retractable roof on Court Phillipe Chatrier (the last Grand Slam center court to get one) also debuts this year.

The other thing with the timing is that it completely changed the players' schedules.  The French Open traditionally marks the end of the European clay court season that lasts most of the Spring.  This year, they had a grand total of one clay court tune-up after the US Open.  For those who played the US Open, I'm curious to see how they transition from the hardcourts to the clay.

Perhaps not surprisingly, a number of European-based players who decided not to travel to New York for the US Open will be in Paris.  The reasons varied.  Some of them were questionable, some were virus-related (which is understandable).  It also went the other way (US Open champion Naomi Osaka, for example, decided not to play the French Open), but, for the most part, the French Open fields will have more of the top names than the US Open did.

One of those top players who didn't play in New York but is miraculously ready to go for the French is Rafael Nadal.  Is anybody surprised by this news?  Clay Boy can make history here.  If he wins again it would be his 20th Grand Slam title, tying Roger Federer's all-time record.  It would also be the 13th Roland Garros crown for the New England Patriots of tennis.

While he's the obvious favorite, Rafa's annual French Open championship isn't preordained, though.  As I mentioned earlier, this'll be the first time he's playing the tournament in September/October instead of May/June (the tournament organizers evidently consulted him before postponing and rescheduling).  More importantly, though, his decision not to play the US Open, coupled with Djokovic's DQ, opened the door for a new Grand Slam champion.  And Dominic Thiem was already widely considered the second-best clay court player in the world before he won the US Open.

Then there's that Djokovic guy, who's creeping up on the all-time Grand Slam record himself.  He's actually the last guy to beat Nadal here--in the 2015 quarterfinals.  Djokovic, of course, had his undefeated 2020 record spoiled with his shocking fourth round default at the US Open.  While what happened obviously can't be changed, I think it's a good thing that there's another Grand Slam so soon after that unfortunate incident.  Djokovic was immediately able to turn the page, return to Europe, and get ready for the French Open.  And I think we may end up seeing some of his best tennis as a result.

And let's not forget Thiem, the two-time Roland Garros finalist who now has a Grand Slam title on his resume.  That's an exclusive club that the Big Three have been reluctant to let anyone else join.  Now that he's broken through, does he have a chance of finally knocking off Nadal on the slow, red stuff?

After so many top women were absent from the US Open (Naomi and Vika were so good that it didn't matter they weren't there, those two would've been in the final anyway), most of them ARE in the field here--with one notable exception.  World No. 1 and defending champion Ashleigh Barty has decided not to travel out of Australia during the pandemic.  Even without her, this field is loaded, though.

Serena Williams is still sitting on 23, one shy of tying Margaret Court for the all-time women's record.  I don't see her making it 24 here.  Clay has always been her weakest surface, and she reached the semifinals of the US Open.  With all those matches on her body, plus the travel, I'm not sure how much she'll have left for the clay court specialists who've been in Europe this whole time.

Those players include top-seeded Simona Halep, the 2018 champ and 2017 finalist.  Halep can regain the No. 1 ranking if she wins, and she enters as the pre-tournament favorite.  With good reason.  I'm just not sure whether not playing the US Open (and thus not getting the match play) was a good thing or a bad thing.

On the bottom half of the women's draw, most of the higher seeds did play the US Open, although not with much success.  They'll all be looking to rebound, but really only Garbine Muguruza (the 2016 champion) has the clay court pedigree.  This is Sofia Kenin's first French Open since her Grand Slam breakthrough, though, so I'm curious to see how well she does.  And I'm still waiting on Karolina Pliskova, who lost in the second round of the US Open as the No. 1 seed.

Call me crazy, but I think this might finally be the time for Pliskova.  I'll probably crash and burn with this pick, but I just have a feeling.  I don't know why.  But I see her beating Angie Kerber in quarters, Muguruza in the semis, and Elina Svitolina (who beats Halep in the other semi) for her first Grand Slam title.

If we've learned anything over the past 16 years, it's that picking against Rafael Nadal at the French Open is a fool's errand.  Thiem and Djokovic won't make it easy for him, but taking three sets from him at Roland Garros is easier said than done.  After all, the guy has only lost twice in his entire French Open career.  So, as much as it pains me to say it, I think he joins Roger at the top of the all-time men's Grand Slam list (silver lining, by skipping the US Open, it made it so that he can't break the record).

So the stage is set for a French Open that will be unlike any other.  It's in the fall for the first time.  It's the final Grand Slam of the year for the first time.  It has a roof and lights for the first time.  But, as they say, the more things change, the more they stay the same.  So don't expect the result to be any different.  At least on the men's side.

Leave the Rule Changes In 2020

As incredible as it may seem, we've almost reached the end of this most unusual of baseball seasons.  And with it, hopefully, will go the rule changes that were put into place for this season.  They were necessary for the dumpster fire of a year that is 2020.  That's where they should remain.  Once the calendar flips to 2021, let's go back to the rules that we all know and love.

I've already made my feelings on the seven-inning doubleheaders known.  This is the one that broadcasters seem to love the most, but I think is highly unlikely to continue.  Nor should it.  Because not only is it stupid, it's unnecessary.

Seven-inning doubleheaders make sense when you're trying to play 60 games in 66 days and teams need to play multiple doubleheaders in a week.  When you're playing 162 games over the course of six months, they do not.  In fact, doubleheaders have become increasingly rare.  Last season, seven teams didn't play any and seven others only played one.  That's nearly half of baseball!  And it's not really asking too much from your pitching staff to play two nine-inning games in one day two or three times over the course of a 181-day season.

All of the logistical issues with split doubleheaders aside, the popular argument in favor of the seven-inning twinbills seems to be that it would allow MLB to schedule more throughout the season and give teams additional off days.  But I think if you were to ask the players, they'd prefer fewer off days to more doubleheaders.  Especially since rosters will go back to 26 men next season.

While I'm on the subject, the 28-man roster is definitely a 2020-only change.  The initial plan for this season was to gradually go from 30 to 28 to 26, which was set to become the new standard roster size this season.  After all of the issues with positive tests early in the season, though, they decided to leave it at 28 all year.  This gave teams the extra pitchers that were needed for all those doubleheaders.  Extra pitchers they won't need available for every game next season.

Regarding pitchers, they were originally going to implement a rule this year with a maximum number that each team could have on its roster, so as to prevent the ridiculous overloading of bullpens that has become all too commonplace.  But because of everything that went on and wanting to make sure pitchers stayed healthy, that maximum wasn't implemented.  Teams could have as many pitchers as they wanted on the 28-man roster.  Next year when it goes back to 26, expect the 13-pitcher limit to be in place.

The other major rule change this season was the extra inning rule.  As soon as a game goes into extra innings, teams have an automatic runner at second base to start each inning.  This is the tiebreaker that has been used internationally, at the college level, and in the Minor Leagues for a few years now, but no one thought it would ever make its way to Major League Baseball.  Until 2020 came along, when it was implemented as a way to hopefully prevent those 15- or 16-inning games that last all night.

Fortunately, this rule change only applied to the regular season.  Once the postseason starts on Tuesday, it's back to normal.  Teams won't get a free runner.  They'll have to manufacture runs all on their own.  Just like they always have.

This was perhaps the most controversial of the 2020 rule changes.  Some of the critics have come around, while others still don't like it and never will.  I fall into the latter category. 

On the surface, I don't have an issue with the international tiebreaker.  In short tournaments like the World Baseball Classic or Olympics, it's necessary in order to keep the event on schedule (or at least as close to on schedule as possible).  But it doesn't belong in Major League Baseball.  Even if it did lead to some new dynamics and scenarios we never thought we'd see (such as leadoff two-run homers).

My biggest problem with it in the Majors is that they immediately go to the tiebreaker as soon as the game goes to the 10th (or eighth).  If this change becomes permanent (which I hope it doesn't), that's one element of it I'd like to see changed.  Don't go to it right away.  Let them play the 10th and maybe even the 11th, then if it's still tied, go to the tiebreaker in the 12th.  (It's like when Wimbledon finally implemented the final set tiebreaker last year.  It doesn't take effect until 12-12, so they still have a chance to resolve things the regular way before going to the tiebreaker.)

Then there's the expanded postseason.  This year's bracket, of course, has been extended from five teams per league to eight, with the best-of-three Wild Card Series on the home fields of the top four seeds set for next week.  This was originally intended to be another 2020-only change.  And it was put in because of how short the season was.  Teams only played 60 games, which didn't leave much margin for error.  So the postseason field was expanded as a fail safe to protect the good teams from being eliminated because of a bad two weeks.

But, we should've figured that, of course, there'd immediately be a push among some owners to make it permanent.  At the very least, they should wait and see how next week goes before pushing for a permanent change, but even then I don't like it. 

Baseball is the one sport that doesn't have half the teams make the playoffs!  Because there's no need for it!  In a 60-game season, there isn't enough time for teams to separate themselves the way they normally would, so the expanded postseason is appropriate.  It gives all 16 teams an equal chance.  But it should be pretty clear after 162 games which handful of teams are legitimately good and have a chance of winning the World Series.  And, sorry, but if you finish 79-83, you shouldn't be guaranteed a playoff spot just because you finished second in your division! 

One last change that was put into place for 2020 will almost certainly become permanent, which will be controversial to some and long overdue to others.  I'm, of course, talking about the DH in the National League.  It's something that many considered inevitable, and the time has come.  And, as people have seen this season, it may change the "National League game," but it doesn't necessarily hurt it.  People don't want to watch pitchers hit.  It's as simple as that.

That's perhaps the one good thing we can take away from this season.  The DH made its way to the National League and the world didn't end (I understand that's probably not the most appropriate analogy to be using right now, but I couldn't think of a better one).  Pitchers might get one last hurrah at the plate next season.  But once the new CBA takes effect, they can turn in their bats and helmets forever.

It's All Interconnected

I saw an article the other day that was basically trying to trash the NHL for its playoff ratings.  Game 5 of the Lightning-Islanders series was one of the lowest-rated ever, and the ratings for the Western Conference Final between Dallas and Vegas weren't particularly high either.  I think this was meant to be treated as news, but it's not really anything that should've surprised anybody.  There IS a reason they don't typically play hockey in September, after all.

Comparing this year's ratings to last year's or any other year's is patently ridiculous.  As we all know, this is an unusual year, so it needs to be treated as such.  Especially when you're talking about the TV ratings for a sport that's playing out of season (and typically draws the lowest ratings of the four major sports anyway).  In a normal year, the NHL wouldn't have afternoon playoff games on weekdays (let alone multiple afternoon games every weekday).

The NHL obviously would've loved to not go up against the NFL.  Just like they would've preferred not to take a four-month break and play during the summer.  And, obviously, they would much rather be traveling all over North America with fans in the stands.  But these are the cards they've been dealt, and I think the NHL has done a tremendous job.

As expected, the ratings for the NBA playoff games are better than those for the NHL.  There are more NBA fans than NHL fans, and they're gonna watch the games whenever they're on.  And the NBA doesn't seem nearly as bothered by the summer time frame, which some NBA owners have been public about their desire to explore prior to the pandemic.  This essentially has given them a free test run to see if it'll work.

However, while the NBA moving to the summer permanently might sound like a great idea to some owners, it could present a major logistical challenge.  Because one of the things that our months without sports taught us is how interconnected everything is.  And making such a dramatic change would upset that balance tremendously.

Let's start by looking at the arenas.  Whether they host teams in both sports or not, these arenas know that they've got 40-80 dates already booked between October-April that they have to schedule around.  Then they fill more dates with college basketball, concerts and other events.  While that can lead to some busy days for the arena staffs, it also makes it easier to plan a schedule for May-September.

Yes, they'll obviously need to keep dates open into June for possible playoff games, but they'll also know that they'll have the rest of the summer free.  That's when a lot of big-name musical artists tour.  If you book concert dates in July, chances are you won't have to change them.  Likewise, if the arena needs to go offline for any sort of renovations or upgrades, when is the best time to do it?  In December, when you lose all the sports revenue?  Or in July when the arena's dark anyway?

College basketball, meanwhile, can't really deviate from its November-March schedule.  So, if the NBA were to move its season to the summer, when would the draft be?  Likewise, what are guys going to do during the months they'll have between competitive games?  (This year's draft has been moved to November, but next season might not start until January, a full 10 months since their last game.)

Then there's the elephant in the room--next summer's Olympics.  The NBA doesn't seem to care too much about the rescheduled Tokyo Olympics.  In a way, I get why they don't.  But they should.  Because a number of countries that are relying on having their NBA players available for the qualifying tournament and the Olympics themselves suddenly won't, which obviously greatly impacts their chances.  And Spurs coach Gregg Popovich is also the head coach of the U.S. Olympic team, so I'm not sure how that's expected to work out.

European soccer provided a great example of how these schedule changes can trickle down.  When all the domestic leagues suspended their seasons, the Champions League was in the middle of the quarterfinal round.  And, since finishing the domestic leagues was prioritized, the conclusion of the Champions League had to wait until those were done.

Those European soccer teams got a whopping six weeks off between the end of the 2019-20 season and the start of the 2020-21 season.  (And during that gap, they played group stage games of the ridiculous UEFA Nations Cup for some reason.)  The reason they weren't given a longer break was because they didn't change the date for the Champions League Final.  They couldn't.  Because the rescheduled Euro 2020 is scheduled for the same June-July dates next year.

But by condensing this season, it gets European soccer back on schedule.  They'll be able to have a "normal" 2021-22 season that starts in mid-August and ends with the Champions League Final in early June.  That's even more important when you consider the 2022-23 schedule has already been thrown off by the late World Cup.

Both the NBA and NHL originally set a goal of December 1 for the opening of next season.  Neither one thinks that's realistic anymore.  The NHL's main concern is whether the border will be open.  That's less of a concern in the NBA, which only has the one Canadian team, but Commissioner Adam Silver has still indicated next season may not start until January at the earliest (although I have a hunch they'll want to preserve the Christmas dates they're so protective of).

They've also both indicated that it's their intention to play a full 82-game schedule, followed by the standard four rounds of playoffs.  I'm not sure if that's possible without playing deep into the summer again (when the Olympics become a problem).  And the later they go, the more of an impact it'll have on the 2021-22 season (which, for the NHL, may include an Olympic break).

It's also worth remembering that the leagues' TV partners set their schedules months in advance.  I give NBC, TNT and ESPN a lot of credit for adjusting everything on the fly to broadcast the playoffs, but we've already seen a number of conflicts between the NBA/Stanley Cup Playoffs and other major events, both regularly scheduled and rescheduled.  That was unavoidable in this crazy year when just playing those events is the priority.  But would you rather play your finals in June, when the only other major sport going on is baseball?  Or in the already oversaturated September/October?

When this season was interrupted and the playoffs were moved to the summer, everyone knew next season would be impacted.  But the later next season starts, the more it impacts 2021-22.  Which means it won't be until the 2022-23 season, at least, that things are back to "normal."

NFL 2020, Week 2

I have to admit, Week 1 surprised me.  I didn't expect the football to be as good as it was.  I thought the quality of play would be something like Week 3 of the preseason.  But I was pleasantly surprised to see that it wasn't.  Despite not having a typical offseason or playing any preseason games (and some defenders having not tackled anybody since December), there were plenty of good, entertaining openers.

Some teams certainly surprised, too.  I was very impressed with the Chicago Bears, and the Arizona Cardinals sure looked like a team that, at the very least, no one will want to play.  Meanwhile, what happened to the Colts and Eagles?  Maybe it was a one-week glitch.  Or maybe they aren't as good as we thought they'd be.  We'll see how well they rebound in Week 2, and we'll also see if any of those teams that had surprise wins last week can keep that momentum. 

Also, a fun note about this week: every team that was home last week is home this week and vice versa.  This was done intentionally as a fail safe against pandemic-related delays, but I like it.  It's something the NFL might want to consider doing permanently (if possible).

Thursday Night: Cleveland (Win)

Giants (0-1) at Bears (1-0): Chicago-Even though they lost, the Giants really showed me something against the Steelers.  Like most people, I thought it would be a Pittsburgh blowout.  But the Giants played well and were in the game the whole way.  And the Bears looked good in their opener, too.  Granted they were playing the Lions, but a win's a win.  And following that up with a matchup against the Giants is a recipe for going 2-0 and gaining some confidence before the schedule gets tougher.

Falcons (0-1) at Cowboys (0-1): Dallas-Yes, they lost to the Rams.  But there's nothing that happened in that game to make me change my opinion about the Dallas Cowboys.  I still think they're the second-best team in the NFC.  And they'll get a chance to show it in their first game at Jerry's World this season.  Atlanta has the offense to hang with them, but the Falcons' defense simply isn't good enough.

Lions (0-1) at Packers (1-0): Green Bay-Green Bay's offense sure was ready for the season to start!  If the Packers can do that every week, they'll be very tough to beat (and you know their defense will come around).  Of course, they were in Minnesota's dome last week, while this week they'll be on the Frozen Tundra at Lambeau.  Not that it should matter much against Detroit.  They don't need to score 43 points to beat the Lions.

Jaguars (1-0) at Titans (1-0): Tennessee-Despite Stephen Gostkowski doing his best to give it away, the Titans held on to beat the Broncos on Monday night.  Now they take on a Jaguars team that had perhaps the most surprising result of Week 1.  It's not just that Jacksonville won.  It's that they made Indianapolis look so bad in doing so.  As a result, this is an early battle for first place in the AFC South.  That'll be a huge edge for the winner, especially since it could give them a two-game edge on the the Colts and Texans, who both have tough games this week.

Vikings (0-1) at Colts (0-1): Minnesota-Call me crazy, but I'm still high on the Vikings even after they gave up 43 points against the Packers.  Their offense had a ton of question marks entering season, but hung with Green Bay score for score.  Sure the defense couldn't stop anybody, but that's not going to be the case every week.  And after the Colts' performance against Jacksonville, I've got no confidence in them whatsoever.

Bills (1-0) at Dolphins (0-1): Buffalo-It was only one game, but the Bills looked every bit like the AFC East favorites after a dominant victory over the Jets to start the season.  As for Miami, I don't know what's going on there!  Against the Patriots, the Dolphins looked just as lost as they have over the past couple of seasons.  They just can't get it together!  I can only imagine how bad things will be for them this week.

49ers (0-1) at Jets (0-1): San Francisco-Evidently, as part of the COVID protocols, West Coast teams that have back-to-back games on the East Coast can't stay out there for that whole week like they normally would.  The 49ers are an exception to that rule, though.  Since they're playing the Jets and Giants in consecutive weeks, they can create their own bubble environment, which the NFL said was acceptable.  Last year, the Bills went 2-for-2 at MetLife.  The 49ers will be halfway there after this one.

Rams (1-0) at Eagles (0-1): Philadelphia-As expected, the Rams put on a pretty good show in the opener of their new stadium (although, what's with those white uniforms?  They're horrible!).  A cross country trip to Philadelphia will be tough test, even after the Eagles laid an absolute egg in their opener.  I'd expect we'll see a much better performance out of the Eagles in Week 2.

Broncos (0-1) at Steelers (1-0): Pittsburgh-What a difference a healthy Ben Roethlisberger makes!  The Steelers looked like the Steelers on Monday night, not the team that wore Steelers jerseys for most of last season.  Denver's Monday night game, meanwhile, followed a script that's become all too familiar to Broncos fans.  Have the lead late, only to give up a field goal in the final minute to lose a close one.  At least this week, they'll lose by more than a field goal.

Panthers (0-1) at Buccaneers (0-1): Tampa Bay-Brady and Gronk's Bucs debut wasn't their best performance ever.  But it's not like they were horrible either!  And let's not forget, they were playing the Saints.  Troy Aikman said at the end of the game that he could still see that being the NFC Championship Game.  While I'm not willing to go that far, I do think Tampa Bay will fare far better in its home opener against a Carolina team it's better than.

Washington (1-0) at Cardinals (1-0): Arizona-Raise your hand if you thought both of these teams would be 1-0 entering this matchup.  Anybody?  Didn't think so!  But here we are.  And not only did they both win, they both had impressive victories over playoff teams from last season.  Which one will move to 2-0?  I'm still not completely sold on Washington, so I think the Cardinals are the safer bet.

Chiefs (1-0) at Chargers (1-0): Kansas City-Doesn't it seem like forever since the Chiefs last played?  That always happens with the Thursday night teams, but it feels even longer between Weeks 1 & 2 for some reason.  Anyway, they're back in action for the Chargers' first home game at SoFi Stadium.  It won't get nearly as much fanfare as the Rams' opener (which it shouldn't, since it's the Rams owner who got the stadium built).  At least they won't be in a stadium full of the other team's fans anymore, though.  But, of course, that beats no fans at all.  As for how their first home game will go, I don't think it'll be as successful as their stadium mates'.  The Super Bowl champs go to 2-0.

Ravens (1-0) at Texans (0-1): Baltimore-Lamar Jackson picked up right where he left off, as the Ravens crushed the Browns in their opener.  They'll face a far tougher test against J.J. Watt and Co.  The Texans continue their brutal stretch to start the season (Kansas City, Baltimore, Pittsburgh, Minnesota) and would really like to show they deserve to be mentioned in the same sentence as the Chiefs and Ravens.  I just think Baltimore will be too much for them, though.

Patriots (1-0) at Seahawks (1-0): Seattle-All week, I wondered if this game would even be played.  I'm still not sure it's smart.  Especially after the Mariners moved their series against the Padres to San Diego.  Seattle is literally ON FIRE!  The NFL is "monitoring the situation," but it appears that they're still planning on playing.  If they do, I've gotta give the nod to the Seahawks, who've had to deal with the air quality all week.

Saints (1-0) at Raiders (1-0): New Orleans-Monday Night Football's 50th anniversary will be celebrated with a three-network broadcast.  It'll be the first regular season game broadcast on ABC in 15 years, and it'll be historic for another reason, too.  The Raiders' opener is the first-ever NFL game in Las Vegas.  Although, like the Rams, they'll open their new football palace without the traditional fanfare that comes with a full house.  Once the game starts, that might be a good thing.  Because Drew Brees is usually good for at least three touchdowns every time he plays on Monday night.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 13-3
Season: 14-3

Only Two Left In the Bubble

Seventeen months later, the Tampa Bay Lightning are finally doing what they were supposed to do last postseason.  The Lightning had a historic regular season in 2018-19, only to be shockingly swept out of the playoffs by Columbus in the first round.  You can tell that's been on their minds.  Because ever since they arrived in the NHL's bubble, they've been playing like they have something to prove.

Meanwhile, I don't think there's any question that Dallas has been the best team in the league since the restart.  They've got plenty of star power (pardon the pun), and it's been on full display.  They seemingly score at will, and they get production from all four lines!  Throw in the outstanding goaltending they've gotten from Anton Khudobin and it's no surprise that they've worked their way to the Stanley Cup Final.

Tampa Bay, of course, has plenty of its own star power.  The Lightning are one of the most talented teams in the league.  And, like Dallas, they can beat you in different ways.  They had a seven-goal game against Boston and scored eight in Game 1 vs. the Islanders, but they've also played six games where Andrei Vasilevskiy only allowed one goal, including the East Final clincher. 

So it's fitting that these are the last two teams standing.  Because they really have been the best teams in their respective bubbles.  Dallas has been especially impressive in the last two rounds, beating the No. 2 seed Colorado in an entertaining series with a ton of goals, then taking all of the top-seeded Golden Knights' best shots in the West Final.  They scored just nine times and still won the series in five (and the game they lost was a shutout)!

Where does that leave us as we get ready for the Cup Final though?  Well, we've got two evenly-matched teams with solid goaltenders, who've both proven they can win different types of games.  Which means that we'll see a 5-4 game one night, then a 2-1 game the next.  It'll be interesting to see who ends up having the advantage in each type.  Either way, it looks like we're in for a fun, competitive series.

When the last two games of the East Final went to overtime, they made the point that Tampa Bay has played 19 postseason games including the round robin, but it's the equivalent of 23 once you factor in all the overtimes.  Dallas has played more games (21), but they've only played four overtime periods, and one of those barely counts since they scored like 25 seconds in or something like that!

More importantly, the Stars last played on Monday, so they'll enter the Final having had four days off.  They've also been in Edmonton the entire time.  Despite being done with their second-round series on Aug. 1, the Lightning had to stay in Toronto until the Islanders-Flyers series was over, then have played every other day since arriving in Edmonton.  Now, after getting one day off, they're looking at potentially playing seven in 12 days, including Games 4 & 5 back-to-back.  (For the record, I hope it doesn't go the distance, since Game 7 would be on the same night as all eight baseball Wild Card series.)

That may not actually make any difference at all.  (After all, everybody had three months off before this.)  But the deeper the series goes, the more it could become a factor.  Especially for Tampa Bay.  The Lightning haven't just played more in a shorter amount of time, they played a very physical series against the Islanders.  The Stars, meanwhile, haven't left Edmonton since this whole thing started.

On paper, Tampa Bay is the better team.  The Lightning were considered serious Cup contenders throughout the regular season and finished with the third-most points in the league.  And they've really picked up right where they left off.  Is that something even worth taking into consideration, though?  Especially since Dallas has been the hottest team in the playoffs.  And, as we see seemingly every year, it's not always the best team that wins the Cup.  It's usually the hottest.

And I have a feeling that with the way Dallas has been playing, especially with how good Khudobin was against Vegas, the Stars won't just roll over.  The Lightning know this.  After all, they saw first-hand what Dallas did to the Golden Knights (one of the perks of the bubble: live scouting!).  I think they're preparing themselves for a long series.

But who wins?  That's the $1 million question.  I wouldn't be surprised if Dallas does.  If you'd asked me back in March when the season was paused if the Stars had any chance of winning the Cup, my answer would've been an emphatic "No way!"  But the team that's spent the last two months in the NHL bubble?  They've absolutely got a shot.  A good one in fact.

With all that being said, though, I just get that Team of Destiny feeling from the Lightning.  They know they should've won last year, when they were embarrassed in the first round.  So, of course, their first-round opponent this year is the same team--Columbus.  And, of course, the first game goes five overtimes!  That game set the tone for this entire playoff run, too.  The Lightning have played six overtime games (two in each series), three of which have gone to multiple OTs.  They're 5-1 in those games, including all three series clinchers.

They remind me a lot of two recent championship teams.  The 2018 Washington Capitals and the 2019 Kansas City Chiefs.  The Capitals were such a great regular season team for so long, but couldn't get past Pittsburgh in the playoffs.  Once they finally did, you just knew they were going all the way.  Same thing with last season's Chiefs.  After they lost the AFC Championship Game to the Patriots, it was Super Bowl or Bust.  And once they got there, you knew they weren't gonna lose (even when the 49ers had that fourth quarter lead I still thought Kansas City was gonna come back and win).

There isn't really any rhyme or reason behind my pick.  The teams are so evenly matched that I think it's going seven games either way.  But I've just got that feeling about the Tampa Bay Lightning.  They best team of the 2018-19 regular season hoists the Cup as the champions in 2020.