- This is the fifth Super Bowl rematch in history. Of the previous four, the team that won the first time won again three times. The only ones to split were the Dolphins and Redskins (Miami won Super Bowl VII, Washington won 10 years later). San Francisco beat Cincinnati twice (XVI and XXIII) and Dallas beat Buffalo in consecutive years (XXVII and XXVIII). The Cowboys and Steelers have played three times. Pittsburgh won Super Bowls X and XIII, while Dallas won the third time (Super Bowl XXX).
- The winner is guaranteed to join the Steelers, 49ers, Cowboys and Packers as the only four-time Super Bowl champions. In fact, the Giants and Patriots have made a combined 12 Super Bowl appearances. The record is 13, set by the Cowboys (8) and Steelers (5) in Super Bowl XXX and tied by the Steelers (8) and Packers (5) last year.
- The Giants become the third team (and first from the NFC) to play in a Super Bowl on each of the four networks, and they can become the first to win the Super Bowl on four different networks. Pittsburgh had a chance to do that last year, but lost to the Packers, while Denver was the first team to play in a Super Bowl on all four networks.
- This is just weird: this is the 25th anniversary of the Giants winning Super Bowl XXI and the 21st anniversary of their winning Super Bowl XXV. They then went 21 years before winning Super Bowl XLII, and are now in a position to again win another title four years later, 25 years after their first. If this trend continues, let's congratulate the Giants on their Super Bowl LXIII and LXVII titles.
- Every time the Giants have been to the Super Bowl, they played their eventual opponent's division during the regular season. The three times they've won the Super Bowl, the Giants faced their eventual opponent in the regular season. In 2000 (the year they lost to Baltimore), they played the Ravens in the preseason, but not the regular season, even though they faced the AFC Central that year. This year is the first time that they played their eventual Super Bowl foe on the road during the regular season (the 1986 Broncos, 1990 Bills and 2007 Patriots all visited Giants Stadium).
- This is the first time since 1974 that a season involving an NFL work stoppage didn't end with the Redskins winning the Super Bowl. Washington won two of its three titles in strike seasons (1982 and 1987).
- Amazingly, this is the first time that the two starting quarterbacks in the Super Bowl are both previous Super Bowl MVPs, even though the MVP has been a quarterback 24 times. Although, Brady was the MVP when the Patriots won their first title, beating Kurt Warner, Eli was the MVP when the Giants beat Brady (a two-time winner) four years ago, and Drew Brees was the MVP when the Saints beat the Colts (Peyton was the MVP when Indy beat Chicago). There have also been eight matchups between quarterbacks that would eventually be Super Bowl MVP at some point.
- The last Summer Olympic year that didn't feature the Patriots in the Super Bowl was 2000, when the Rams beat the Titans. The Patriots were in Super Bowl XXVIII in 2004, and they, of course, played the Giants in 2008.
- Tom Brady can tie all sorts of records in this game. He's going to tie John Elway's record with five Super Bowl starts, can tie Terry Bradshaw and Joe Montana as the only quarterbacks with four Super Bowl wins, and join Montana as the only three-time MVPs.
- Three teams (the Patriots, Steelers and Colts) have won 10 of the last 11 AFC championships, including the last nine. The only team to break that stranglehold was the 2002 Raiders. In that same timeframe, 10 different NFC teams have been to the Super Bowl. The Giants are the only repeat team in that span, and their appearance this year snaps a string of 10 different NFC champions in 10 years.
- The Giants can become the first 9-7 Super Bowl champion in NFL history. They also tied an NFL record by playing four different division winners (New England, Green Bay, New Orleans and San Francisco) during the regular season. The Patriots are the third division winner that they'll face a second time in the playoffs, and they've already won at Green Bay and San Francisco in the postseason.
- Bill Belichick has been on the sidelines for every Giants Super Bowl win. He was the Giants' defensive coordinator for Super Bowls XXI and XXV, and, of course, Patriots head coach for Super Bowl XLII.
- Finally, Manning will be the starting quarterback for a game in Indianapolis this season, after all. (Since Eli's starting the Super Bowl in Peyton's stadium this season, maybe Peyton will start the Super Bowl in Eli's stadium two years from now.)
Tuesday, January 31, 2012
Super Bowl XLVI Fun Facts
The two-week wait between the conference championship games and the Super Bowl can seem really long sometimes. There are only so many stories, and there are only so many angles to each one that can be taken. Although, this year there seems to be just as much talk about our hosts and Manning The Elder as there is about the Giants and Patriots. Anyway, instead of analyzing this thing to death like everybody else, I'm going to follow the tradition I established last year and share some fun facts about the Super Bowl that nobody else seems to realize or care about, but I find interesting nonetheless.
Sunday, January 29, 2012
Track at the Garden
Have you ever had one of those days that you'll never forget, no matter how long you live? I had one of those days yesterday. Thanks to a great number of factors working out in my favor, I got the opportunity to work on the track at the inaugural U.S. Open last night at Madison Square Garden. The experience was beyond words.
For starters, the lovely Anna Pierce was more than willing to indulge me for a picture. She even offered up a personalized autograph (that was written in pink) unsolicited. I don't think my substantial crush on her will subside anytime soon.
Talking about what I actually did won't sound at all glamorous. I did a lot of things, from moving mats to setting up hurdles to retrieving shot puts. I even made my way into some of the pictures and saw myself on the ESPN2 broadcast more than a few times. But, frankly, it wasn't about any of that. I wanted to be there, up close and personal, for the thrill of track & field at The World's Most Famous Arena. All the other stuff was just a bonus.
I don't know what the attendance and TV ratings were like, but in my opinion, the inaugural U.S. Open was a success. Most importantly, it continued the 99-year tradition of track & field at the Garden. For the sake of the sport, that was paramount. Especially in an Olympic year, track & field needs the opportunity to be showcased on the biggest stage. And no stage is bigger than Madison Square Garden.
Unfortunately, it looked for a while like track & field was going to lose that stage. For 98 years, the Millrose Games, held at Madison Square Garden, were the most prestigious track meet in the United States, if not the world. Last year's Millrose Games were the last to be held at the Garden. The people who own the Armory, a venue in Upper Manhattan that hosts a number of meets at all levels every year (I've run there many times) took over organization of the Millrose Games a few years ago. After last year's meet, they made the controversial decision to move the Millrose Games to the Armory. Knowing that losing the Garden wasn't an option, USA Track & Field stepped in and staged the inaugural U.S. Open. The first Armory-version of the Millrose Games will take place in a few weeks.
There's quite a debate going on about whether or not two competing meets in the same city a few weeks apart can both survive. I say we've got to wait until after the Millrose Games are over before we draw any conclusions. But I don't see how they both can't. If anything, the Millrose Games might be the meet that's in trouble. Consider: the U.S. Open has the prestige of Madison Square Garden, USATF's backing and, most importantly, TV coverage.
The Millrose Games had all that, but now doesn't. Instead, it's another track meet at a facility that holds thousands of track meets a year. Sure it's got the name and the facility is much better. Big deal. The biggest thing going against the Millrose Games is that the meet's no longer on TV (update: they announced today that the Millrose Games will be streamed live on YouTube). In fact, USATF is sponsoring and televising another meet in Arkansas that weekend. That meet is part of the Visa Championship Series, which awards prize money to athletes based on their best performance at one of four top-tier indoor meets. So is the U.S. Open.
Maybe the U.S. Open and Millrose Games will be able to make peace. Better yet, maybe both will survive. But I think if there's anything that the inaugural U.S. Open proved, it's that regardless of the meet's name, there's still something special about running at Madison Square Garden. That's never going to change.
For starters, the lovely Anna Pierce was more than willing to indulge me for a picture. She even offered up a personalized autograph (that was written in pink) unsolicited. I don't think my substantial crush on her will subside anytime soon.
 |
| That's me with 2008 Olympian Anna Pierce |
I don't know what the attendance and TV ratings were like, but in my opinion, the inaugural U.S. Open was a success. Most importantly, it continued the 99-year tradition of track & field at the Garden. For the sake of the sport, that was paramount. Especially in an Olympic year, track & field needs the opportunity to be showcased on the biggest stage. And no stage is bigger than Madison Square Garden.
Unfortunately, it looked for a while like track & field was going to lose that stage. For 98 years, the Millrose Games, held at Madison Square Garden, were the most prestigious track meet in the United States, if not the world. Last year's Millrose Games were the last to be held at the Garden. The people who own the Armory, a venue in Upper Manhattan that hosts a number of meets at all levels every year (I've run there many times) took over organization of the Millrose Games a few years ago. After last year's meet, they made the controversial decision to move the Millrose Games to the Armory. Knowing that losing the Garden wasn't an option, USA Track & Field stepped in and staged the inaugural U.S. Open. The first Armory-version of the Millrose Games will take place in a few weeks.
There's quite a debate going on about whether or not two competing meets in the same city a few weeks apart can both survive. I say we've got to wait until after the Millrose Games are over before we draw any conclusions. But I don't see how they both can't. If anything, the Millrose Games might be the meet that's in trouble. Consider: the U.S. Open has the prestige of Madison Square Garden, USATF's backing and, most importantly, TV coverage.
The Millrose Games had all that, but now doesn't. Instead, it's another track meet at a facility that holds thousands of track meets a year. Sure it's got the name and the facility is much better. Big deal. The biggest thing going against the Millrose Games is that the meet's no longer on TV (update: they announced today that the Millrose Games will be streamed live on YouTube). In fact, USATF is sponsoring and televising another meet in Arkansas that weekend. That meet is part of the Visa Championship Series, which awards prize money to athletes based on their best performance at one of four top-tier indoor meets. So is the U.S. Open.
Maybe the U.S. Open and Millrose Games will be able to make peace. Better yet, maybe both will survive. But I think if there's anything that the inaugural U.S. Open proved, it's that regardless of the meet's name, there's still something special about running at Madison Square Garden. That's never going to change.
Thursday, January 26, 2012
How to Fix the Pro Bowl
Today on ESPN.com, I read an article suggesting different ways to improve the Pro Bowl. I agree that the Pro Bowl is the worst, most meaningless all-star game in all of sports. But that's not entirely the game's fault. There are a lot of outside factors that have conspired to make the Pro Bowl suck even more than it used to. However, I don't agree with all the suggestions that were made (for starters, they absolutely shouldn't move the Pro Bowl out of Hawaii). There are definitely some things that need to change to make the Pro Bowl a better event, though, which is why I have some suggestions of my own.
I used to be one of the 11 people who watched the Pro Bowl. Not anymore. Not since Roger Baddell made his first of many horrible decisions as commissioner and moved the Pro Bowl to the week before the Super Bowl. As a part of that change, another rule was put into place that players from the two Super Bowl teams will automatically be replaced on the Pro Bowl rosters. Doing this makes absolutely no sense! How can you have an "all-star" game without players from the two best teams in the league? Who wants to see Tom Brady when you can see Andy Dalton instead! So, change No. 1: Move the Pro Bowl back to the week after the Super Bowl like it used to be. Like it should be.
Change No. 2: Hawaii is the game's permanent location. I thought this was the case until two years ago, when, as part of his sweeping changes to "improve" the Pro Bowl, Mr. Brilliant Commissioner moved the game to Miami, which was also the site of the Super Bowl that season. This was evidently designed to broaden the appeal of the Pro Bowl, using it as a launching pad for Super Bowl Week. Slight problem with this plan, though. The players liked going to Hawaii. There was nothing special about Miami. The prospect of continuing the trend of having the Pro Bowl and Super Bowl in the same city was even less appealing with Dallas and Indianapolis hosting the last two Super Bowls. Not exactly choice locations in late January/early February. He at least figured this out after one year and moved the game back to Hawaii, which is where it should be. For the players, Hawaii is a nice all-expenses-paid vacation as a reward for their great season. A couple practices are worth it to spend a week in Paradise.
Change No. 3: Expanded rosters. Each team dresses 53 players for every NFL game. In the Pro Bowl, the roster size is 44, then each team adds a long-snapper later on (why don't they just pick the long snapper with everybody else?). Am I the only person who thinks there should be more people on the all-star team, not less? Especially in such a physically taxing sport like football. There are only six defensive linemen per team and, which makes even less sense, only six defensive backs per team. It's tough to play a nickel package with only three corners. My favorite part is that there are only three safeties total on each roster, even though the two safety spots are recognized as different positions. Plus, you need somebody to play special teams. The Pro Bowl rosters should each have at least eight more guys each, maybe more.
Change No. 4: Eliminate some of the ridiculously stupid rules that are completely different than any other football game. The Pro Bowl has some "special" rules that are used just for this one game, none of which are familiar to anybody, let alone the players. A lot of these rules don't make any sense, either. They include: a tight end must be on the field for every play; no motion offense; you can't line up three receivers on the same side; intentional grounding is legal; defenses can only play a 4-3; no more than four defensive backs can be on the field; no blitzing; no rushing on a kick. So, basically, the Pro Bowl is designed to resemble a football game without actually being one. Let these guys play by the same rules they play by all season. Let them play a real football game, not this watered-down crap.
Change No. 5: Find some way to make guys actually show up. You could fill almost an entire roster of just guys who are selected to the Pro Bowl but don't play. The no Super Bowl players thing doesn't help this at all, either. They give a variety of reasons, but, for the most part, not wanting to is usually the primary reason. Not for everybody. Some players are thrilled to get selected to the Pro Bowl, especially young guys who are selected for the first time. They want to go. But the guys who don't want to go, and the NFL letting them stay home, are a problem. Fans don't want to watch the fifth-best quarterback in the AFC. They want to watch Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers. If a guy is actually injured (to the point where he would miss a regular game), then he's excused from the Pro Bowl. If he just doesn't want to play, he's ineligible for the Pro Bowl (and any roster bonuses that might go with it) the following season.
Change No. 6: Instead of putting the Pro Bowl on the same network as the Super Bowl, just have it on ESPN all the time. The network covering the Super Bowl doesn't want the Pro Bowl. They only show it because the NFL makes them. The Pro Bowl always used to be on ESPN. That made sense. ESPN doesn't have any postseason games, so the Pro Bowl would always be their final game of the season. Most importantly, they'd treat it like THEIR postseason game. The three broadcast networks don't care. They don't send their top broadcasters (who are busy preparing to cover the Super Bowl). They aren't happy about having to preempt their Sunday night programming to show a football game that, unlike every other football game, is going to get killed in the ratings. If ESPN can show 38 meaningless college bowl games, one more involving NFL players wouldn't hurt them. And crappy Pro Bowl ratings will still probably trump the ratings for the Humanitarian Bowl.
I'm not saying the other three All-Star Games are perfect. (Sidebar: Why is there an NBA All-Star Game this year? They lost two months because of the lockout, yet are voluntarily taking four days off in the middle of the season? It doesn't make sense to me.) But the Pro Bowl definitely needs the most work. I'm not saying these changes will make that much of a difference, but they could definitely be worth a shot.
I used to be one of the 11 people who watched the Pro Bowl. Not anymore. Not since Roger Baddell made his first of many horrible decisions as commissioner and moved the Pro Bowl to the week before the Super Bowl. As a part of that change, another rule was put into place that players from the two Super Bowl teams will automatically be replaced on the Pro Bowl rosters. Doing this makes absolutely no sense! How can you have an "all-star" game without players from the two best teams in the league? Who wants to see Tom Brady when you can see Andy Dalton instead! So, change No. 1: Move the Pro Bowl back to the week after the Super Bowl like it used to be. Like it should be.
Change No. 2: Hawaii is the game's permanent location. I thought this was the case until two years ago, when, as part of his sweeping changes to "improve" the Pro Bowl, Mr. Brilliant Commissioner moved the game to Miami, which was also the site of the Super Bowl that season. This was evidently designed to broaden the appeal of the Pro Bowl, using it as a launching pad for Super Bowl Week. Slight problem with this plan, though. The players liked going to Hawaii. There was nothing special about Miami. The prospect of continuing the trend of having the Pro Bowl and Super Bowl in the same city was even less appealing with Dallas and Indianapolis hosting the last two Super Bowls. Not exactly choice locations in late January/early February. He at least figured this out after one year and moved the game back to Hawaii, which is where it should be. For the players, Hawaii is a nice all-expenses-paid vacation as a reward for their great season. A couple practices are worth it to spend a week in Paradise.
Change No. 3: Expanded rosters. Each team dresses 53 players for every NFL game. In the Pro Bowl, the roster size is 44, then each team adds a long-snapper later on (why don't they just pick the long snapper with everybody else?). Am I the only person who thinks there should be more people on the all-star team, not less? Especially in such a physically taxing sport like football. There are only six defensive linemen per team and, which makes even less sense, only six defensive backs per team. It's tough to play a nickel package with only three corners. My favorite part is that there are only three safeties total on each roster, even though the two safety spots are recognized as different positions. Plus, you need somebody to play special teams. The Pro Bowl rosters should each have at least eight more guys each, maybe more.
Change No. 4: Eliminate some of the ridiculously stupid rules that are completely different than any other football game. The Pro Bowl has some "special" rules that are used just for this one game, none of which are familiar to anybody, let alone the players. A lot of these rules don't make any sense, either. They include: a tight end must be on the field for every play; no motion offense; you can't line up three receivers on the same side; intentional grounding is legal; defenses can only play a 4-3; no more than four defensive backs can be on the field; no blitzing; no rushing on a kick. So, basically, the Pro Bowl is designed to resemble a football game without actually being one. Let these guys play by the same rules they play by all season. Let them play a real football game, not this watered-down crap.
Change No. 5: Find some way to make guys actually show up. You could fill almost an entire roster of just guys who are selected to the Pro Bowl but don't play. The no Super Bowl players thing doesn't help this at all, either. They give a variety of reasons, but, for the most part, not wanting to is usually the primary reason. Not for everybody. Some players are thrilled to get selected to the Pro Bowl, especially young guys who are selected for the first time. They want to go. But the guys who don't want to go, and the NFL letting them stay home, are a problem. Fans don't want to watch the fifth-best quarterback in the AFC. They want to watch Tom Brady or Ben Roethlisberger or Philip Rivers. If a guy is actually injured (to the point where he would miss a regular game), then he's excused from the Pro Bowl. If he just doesn't want to play, he's ineligible for the Pro Bowl (and any roster bonuses that might go with it) the following season.
Change No. 6: Instead of putting the Pro Bowl on the same network as the Super Bowl, just have it on ESPN all the time. The network covering the Super Bowl doesn't want the Pro Bowl. They only show it because the NFL makes them. The Pro Bowl always used to be on ESPN. That made sense. ESPN doesn't have any postseason games, so the Pro Bowl would always be their final game of the season. Most importantly, they'd treat it like THEIR postseason game. The three broadcast networks don't care. They don't send their top broadcasters (who are busy preparing to cover the Super Bowl). They aren't happy about having to preempt their Sunday night programming to show a football game that, unlike every other football game, is going to get killed in the ratings. If ESPN can show 38 meaningless college bowl games, one more involving NFL players wouldn't hurt them. And crappy Pro Bowl ratings will still probably trump the ratings for the Humanitarian Bowl.
I'm not saying the other three All-Star Games are perfect. (Sidebar: Why is there an NBA All-Star Game this year? They lost two months because of the lockout, yet are voluntarily taking four days off in the middle of the season? It doesn't make sense to me.) But the Pro Bowl definitely needs the most work. I'm not saying these changes will make that much of a difference, but they could definitely be worth a shot.
Tuesday, January 24, 2012
Hip Hip Jorge
Rarely do we get to see a professional athlete retire on his own terms. How many guys have we seen stick around too long, a shadow of their former selves? How many are forced out by injuries before their time? How many want to keep playing, but the owners and GM's not-so-subtly tell them that they aren't good enough anymore? How many are forced out by outside circumstances?
Not Jorge Posada. Going into the 2011 season, he knew it was probably his last year with the Yankees. He was no longer wanted, a point made even more obvious as a very difficult season for him wore on. It was clear that he wasn't going to be wearing a Yankees uniform in 2012. Even at age 40, he had plenty of options if he wanted to play somewhere else next season. But he didn't want that. Jorge Posada has been a Yankee for 17 years. He couldn't ever envision himself wearing another uniform. As a fan, I couldn't picture that, either. So instead of giving us an awkward image reminiscent of Joe Namath in a Rams uniform, Jorge decided to hang it up.
Watching the press conference today, he certainly looked like a man at peace with his decision. I don't think he has any regrets. Being a career Yankee meant more to him than anything. In fact, he opened the press conference by quoting Joe DiMaggio: "I want to thank the Good Lord for making me a Yankee." The man has spent literally half his life playing baseball for the New York Yankees organization. The organization has meant as much to him as he's meant to the organization. He deserved to go out a Yankee. On his own terms. There was a chance for this to be a very painful exit after a very messy divorce. But in the back of his mind, I think Jorge knew he was going to retire after the 2011 season all along. That's why he wouldn't even let his agent entertain offers from other teams this offseason.
Today wasn't about his final season. A year in which he had trouble adjusting to DHing (he even said that it felt like he got "demoted"), didn't get a hit against a lefty until June, removed himself from the lineup for a game against Boston, only to receive massive negative backlash, then became a part-time player towards the end of the season. Although, let's not forget he had some pretty great moments in 2011, too. The pinch-hit two-run double that clinched the AL East. The grand slams on back-to-back days. The incredible hot streak in May/June after he put himself back in the lineup. In his final series as a Yankee, he led the team with a .429 average in the Division Series against the Tigers.
I have two favorite Jorge Posada memories from 2011. I went to the game against the Orioles on my birthday, and the Yankees were losing 5-4 going into the bottom of the ninth. Jorge led off the inning with a monster shot into the bullpen in right. The Yankees won 6-5 in 10. I then went to a game against Cleveland in June. It was Jorge Posada Figurine Night. Jorge had hits in his first three at-bats that night. The figurine is on the shelf in my living room. Then there was the final night he caught. In Seattle in September, when Russell Martin got hurt, new Mariner Jesus Montero was DHing, and Francisco Cervelli was out with a concussion. Or how about his inning at second base? When he, of course, had one ground ball to field, and almost killed Nick Swisher with the throw to first!
Today was the celebration of a great career for a great Yankee. A guy who played a major role on four World Championship teams. A beloved member of the "Core Four." The man who caught more games than all but three other Yankees in history, including David Wells' perfect game. The man who hit the first home run in the new Yankee Stadium. And, of course, there was that memorable two-run double off Pedro Martinez that tied Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS.
The "Core Four" is down to two. The two that are left will be inducted into the Hall of Fame exactly five years after they retire. It'll take about 11 seconds to decide that. Cooperstown isn't a lock for Jorge or Andy Pettitte. I do think they'll both eventually get the call, but whether or not they're also elected isn't really the point. All four are beloved Yankees. Even during Jorge Posada's trying final season, that never changed. Despite his struggles (and with a notoriously tough fan base), I don't remember him being booed at all in 2011. What I do remember are plenty of standing ovations. We felt his pain. It was hard to see him struggle, and we wanted him to know he never lost our support. But it was more than that. The fans knew as well as anybody that 2011 was Jorge Posada's swan song. I think some of those standing ovations were just as much an opportunity to say both "Thank You" and "Goodbye" at the same time.
Thank You, Jorge. And Goodbye. Best of luck in whatever you choose to do next. I think you'll be a tremendous coach/manager someday, maybe even in the Yankees system. I'm sure we'll see you again at Old Timers' Day. And on "Jorge Posada Day", when No. 20 goes on the wall in Monument Park. And, at some point in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future, in Cooperstown.
Not Jorge Posada. Going into the 2011 season, he knew it was probably his last year with the Yankees. He was no longer wanted, a point made even more obvious as a very difficult season for him wore on. It was clear that he wasn't going to be wearing a Yankees uniform in 2012. Even at age 40, he had plenty of options if he wanted to play somewhere else next season. But he didn't want that. Jorge Posada has been a Yankee for 17 years. He couldn't ever envision himself wearing another uniform. As a fan, I couldn't picture that, either. So instead of giving us an awkward image reminiscent of Joe Namath in a Rams uniform, Jorge decided to hang it up.
Watching the press conference today, he certainly looked like a man at peace with his decision. I don't think he has any regrets. Being a career Yankee meant more to him than anything. In fact, he opened the press conference by quoting Joe DiMaggio: "I want to thank the Good Lord for making me a Yankee." The man has spent literally half his life playing baseball for the New York Yankees organization. The organization has meant as much to him as he's meant to the organization. He deserved to go out a Yankee. On his own terms. There was a chance for this to be a very painful exit after a very messy divorce. But in the back of his mind, I think Jorge knew he was going to retire after the 2011 season all along. That's why he wouldn't even let his agent entertain offers from other teams this offseason.
Today wasn't about his final season. A year in which he had trouble adjusting to DHing (he even said that it felt like he got "demoted"), didn't get a hit against a lefty until June, removed himself from the lineup for a game against Boston, only to receive massive negative backlash, then became a part-time player towards the end of the season. Although, let's not forget he had some pretty great moments in 2011, too. The pinch-hit two-run double that clinched the AL East. The grand slams on back-to-back days. The incredible hot streak in May/June after he put himself back in the lineup. In his final series as a Yankee, he led the team with a .429 average in the Division Series against the Tigers.
I have two favorite Jorge Posada memories from 2011. I went to the game against the Orioles on my birthday, and the Yankees were losing 5-4 going into the bottom of the ninth. Jorge led off the inning with a monster shot into the bullpen in right. The Yankees won 6-5 in 10. I then went to a game against Cleveland in June. It was Jorge Posada Figurine Night. Jorge had hits in his first three at-bats that night. The figurine is on the shelf in my living room. Then there was the final night he caught. In Seattle in September, when Russell Martin got hurt, new Mariner Jesus Montero was DHing, and Francisco Cervelli was out with a concussion. Or how about his inning at second base? When he, of course, had one ground ball to field, and almost killed Nick Swisher with the throw to first!
Today was the celebration of a great career for a great Yankee. A guy who played a major role on four World Championship teams. A beloved member of the "Core Four." The man who caught more games than all but three other Yankees in history, including David Wells' perfect game. The man who hit the first home run in the new Yankee Stadium. And, of course, there was that memorable two-run double off Pedro Martinez that tied Game 7 of the 2003 ALCS.
The "Core Four" is down to two. The two that are left will be inducted into the Hall of Fame exactly five years after they retire. It'll take about 11 seconds to decide that. Cooperstown isn't a lock for Jorge or Andy Pettitte. I do think they'll both eventually get the call, but whether or not they're also elected isn't really the point. All four are beloved Yankees. Even during Jorge Posada's trying final season, that never changed. Despite his struggles (and with a notoriously tough fan base), I don't remember him being booed at all in 2011. What I do remember are plenty of standing ovations. We felt his pain. It was hard to see him struggle, and we wanted him to know he never lost our support. But it was more than that. The fans knew as well as anybody that 2011 was Jorge Posada's swan song. I think some of those standing ovations were just as much an opportunity to say both "Thank You" and "Goodbye" at the same time.
Thank You, Jorge. And Goodbye. Best of luck in whatever you choose to do next. I think you'll be a tremendous coach/manager someday, maybe even in the Yankees system. I'm sure we'll see you again at Old Timers' Day. And on "Jorge Posada Day", when No. 20 goes on the wall in Monument Park. And, at some point in the (hopefully) not-too-distant future, in Cooperstown.
Saturday, January 21, 2012
NFL Picks: Conference Championships
We've arrived at one of the best days in all of sports: Conference Championship Sunday. Come 10:00 tomorrow night, we'll know the two participants in Super Bowl XLVI. It's a very interesting mix of teams remaining. The Giants are the best team in the NFL right now, the Ravens have been the best team in the AFC all season, the Patriots have been the Patriots, and the 49ers showed last week that they can't be overlooked. So much for that Packers-Saints rematch for the NFC title. Even when we get to the conference championship games, there's still usually one team remaining that has little to no chance to actually win the Super Bowl. That's not the case this year, I can see any of the four potential matchups happening, and I can see all four teams winning it all.
Ravens (13-4) at Patriots (14-3): Baltimore-This is the matchup I was hoping to see in the AFC. Now we get to see what the Patriots are made of. Thanks to the Ravens not showing up for that Monday night game in Jacksonville, New England ended up with home field advantage, which puts this game in Foxboro. I'm not sure how much of a factor that'll play, though. The Ravens know how to play in cold weather and they can run the ball. And playing in Foxboro certainly isn't going to scare them. They beat the Patriots there in the divisional playoffs two years ago. Besides, (with the exception of last week) the Ravens are always on the road in the playoffs, so that won't phase them at all.
Last week against the Texans, it looked like the Ravens would win going away. They led 17-3 after the first quarter. But Houston came back and manged to make it a game before the Baltimore defense took care of things. New England's offense is much better than Houston's. I'm not saying that the Ravens defense needs to shut them down entirely. But they do need to slow them down enough to give the offense a chance to do something. Ray Rice is a supreme talent. The Patriots know that as much as anybody. That's why Joe Flacco will be an important player in this game. If New England tries to stop the run (which I think they will), Flacco needs to air it out and take advantage of that shaky Patriots secondary. The Ravens offense doesn't need to win the game. All they need to do is be on the field long enough to keep Tom Brady off it, and maybe getting a touchdown here or there.
The Patriots are smart enough to know that they're not going to score at will against a real defense like they did last week against the Tebows. Everybody knows that Brady's going to look for Gronkowski and Welker. I wouldn't be surprised to see Baltimore to take both of them out of the game and make New England run the ball. If Brady's going to get the ball downfield in the air, the offensive line is going to need to give him a massive amount of protection. Baltimore's pass rush and secondary are too good. They'll get to Brady eventually, and he's not going to be able to go deep. I wouldn't be surprised if the Ravens let Gronkowski do what he's going to do while working on everybody else. They'll let them run all over the middle of the field all day. They need to keep them out of the end zone.
So, who do I like? New England's 13-3 record was deceiving. The Patriots played a grand total of two teams that finished with a winning record, and they lost both of those games! Sure, they went 2-0 against the 8-8 Jets and against the 8-8 Tebows, but they haven't been tested against a team that's actually good since they lost to the Giants in November. The Ravens, on the other hand, might've had some bad losses (Jacksonville, Seattle), but they also beat the Steelers twice, the Bengals twice, the Texans twice (including last week) and the 49ers. Baltimore's proven all year that it's a better team than New England. They'll prove it again on Sunday and get a trip to Indianapolis as their reward.
Giants (11-7) at 49ers (14-3): Giants-Will people finally get off Alex Smith's back now? San Francisco's quarterback certainly proved a lot in that great game against the Saints last week. Most importantly, he beat New Orleans exactly the same way the Saints beat everybody else. The 49ers' defense wasn't the impenetrable fortress it usually was, and they still won the game! Meanwhile, is any team playing better football than the Giants right now? They went into Green Bay and completely dominated a Packers team that had been all but anoninted Super Bowl champs. So, instead of Packers-Saints, we've got a throwback. It's the Giants and 49ers for the NFC Championship.
Alex Smith will never be confused with Joe Montana or Steve Young, but he's gotten San Francisco back to the game that was commonplace when those two Hall of Famers were quarterbacking the 49ers in the '80s and early '90s. I'm not an idiot. I know the defense deserves most of the credit for the 49ers' impressive season, but it was Smith who engineered that game-winning drive last week, and his teammates certainly have the confidence in him. But the 49ers need to make sure that the offensive line keeps him from getting flattened the way Montana got flattened by Leonard Marshall 21 years ago. It's supposed to rain throughout the game, which means the 49ers could serve up even more Frank Gore than they usually do. The Giants' defense is full of talented pass rushers. Stopping Gore will be one of the keys to winning. San Francisco's passing game isn't good enough to be the sole provider of offense. Not against the Giants defense, anyway.
With the ridiculous numbers put up by Pro Bowl teammates Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees this season, Eli Manning's 2011 got a little lost in the shuffle. Well, he's the only one of the three still playing. And now he's got a chance to reach as many Super Bowls as his brother. Eli's got plenty of weapons at his disposal, but the key will be the running game, just like it was last week. Who knows what the field at Candlestick will be like if it rains the entire game like it's supposed to? Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs need to establish themselves early so that Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks can still be effective. If the Giants can't run the ball, the 49ers can just load up the pass rush, and Eli wants to see Justin Smith in the backfiled about as much as Alex Smith (is it some sort of rule that everybody on the 49ers is named Smith?) wants to see JPP or Osi Umenyoria. This San Francisco defense is much better than Green Bay's defense. Eli needs to chip away and keep them on the field so that they get tired out rather than going for the home run play.
The game's in San Francisco, which will help the Niners keep it close. But the Giants are playing at another level right now. In 2007, a regular season home loss to the undefeated Patriots gave them the confidence that they rode to a Super Bowl title. This year's script is so remarkably similar it's scary. The confidence-building home loss to an undefeated team was against the Packers. They faced the Packers again in the playoffs, and this time they won. Sound familiar? Look out 49ers. There's nothing stopping this Giants train until it pulls into Indianapolis.
Last Week: 4-0
Playoffs: 7-1
Overall: 174-90
Ravens (13-4) at Patriots (14-3): Baltimore-This is the matchup I was hoping to see in the AFC. Now we get to see what the Patriots are made of. Thanks to the Ravens not showing up for that Monday night game in Jacksonville, New England ended up with home field advantage, which puts this game in Foxboro. I'm not sure how much of a factor that'll play, though. The Ravens know how to play in cold weather and they can run the ball. And playing in Foxboro certainly isn't going to scare them. They beat the Patriots there in the divisional playoffs two years ago. Besides, (with the exception of last week) the Ravens are always on the road in the playoffs, so that won't phase them at all.
Last week against the Texans, it looked like the Ravens would win going away. They led 17-3 after the first quarter. But Houston came back and manged to make it a game before the Baltimore defense took care of things. New England's offense is much better than Houston's. I'm not saying that the Ravens defense needs to shut them down entirely. But they do need to slow them down enough to give the offense a chance to do something. Ray Rice is a supreme talent. The Patriots know that as much as anybody. That's why Joe Flacco will be an important player in this game. If New England tries to stop the run (which I think they will), Flacco needs to air it out and take advantage of that shaky Patriots secondary. The Ravens offense doesn't need to win the game. All they need to do is be on the field long enough to keep Tom Brady off it, and maybe getting a touchdown here or there.
The Patriots are smart enough to know that they're not going to score at will against a real defense like they did last week against the Tebows. Everybody knows that Brady's going to look for Gronkowski and Welker. I wouldn't be surprised to see Baltimore to take both of them out of the game and make New England run the ball. If Brady's going to get the ball downfield in the air, the offensive line is going to need to give him a massive amount of protection. Baltimore's pass rush and secondary are too good. They'll get to Brady eventually, and he's not going to be able to go deep. I wouldn't be surprised if the Ravens let Gronkowski do what he's going to do while working on everybody else. They'll let them run all over the middle of the field all day. They need to keep them out of the end zone.
So, who do I like? New England's 13-3 record was deceiving. The Patriots played a grand total of two teams that finished with a winning record, and they lost both of those games! Sure, they went 2-0 against the 8-8 Jets and against the 8-8 Tebows, but they haven't been tested against a team that's actually good since they lost to the Giants in November. The Ravens, on the other hand, might've had some bad losses (Jacksonville, Seattle), but they also beat the Steelers twice, the Bengals twice, the Texans twice (including last week) and the 49ers. Baltimore's proven all year that it's a better team than New England. They'll prove it again on Sunday and get a trip to Indianapolis as their reward.
Giants (11-7) at 49ers (14-3): Giants-Will people finally get off Alex Smith's back now? San Francisco's quarterback certainly proved a lot in that great game against the Saints last week. Most importantly, he beat New Orleans exactly the same way the Saints beat everybody else. The 49ers' defense wasn't the impenetrable fortress it usually was, and they still won the game! Meanwhile, is any team playing better football than the Giants right now? They went into Green Bay and completely dominated a Packers team that had been all but anoninted Super Bowl champs. So, instead of Packers-Saints, we've got a throwback. It's the Giants and 49ers for the NFC Championship.
Alex Smith will never be confused with Joe Montana or Steve Young, but he's gotten San Francisco back to the game that was commonplace when those two Hall of Famers were quarterbacking the 49ers in the '80s and early '90s. I'm not an idiot. I know the defense deserves most of the credit for the 49ers' impressive season, but it was Smith who engineered that game-winning drive last week, and his teammates certainly have the confidence in him. But the 49ers need to make sure that the offensive line keeps him from getting flattened the way Montana got flattened by Leonard Marshall 21 years ago. It's supposed to rain throughout the game, which means the 49ers could serve up even more Frank Gore than they usually do. The Giants' defense is full of talented pass rushers. Stopping Gore will be one of the keys to winning. San Francisco's passing game isn't good enough to be the sole provider of offense. Not against the Giants defense, anyway.
With the ridiculous numbers put up by Pro Bowl teammates Aaron Rodgers and Drew Brees this season, Eli Manning's 2011 got a little lost in the shuffle. Well, he's the only one of the three still playing. And now he's got a chance to reach as many Super Bowls as his brother. Eli's got plenty of weapons at his disposal, but the key will be the running game, just like it was last week. Who knows what the field at Candlestick will be like if it rains the entire game like it's supposed to? Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs need to establish themselves early so that Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks can still be effective. If the Giants can't run the ball, the 49ers can just load up the pass rush, and Eli wants to see Justin Smith in the backfiled about as much as Alex Smith (is it some sort of rule that everybody on the 49ers is named Smith?) wants to see JPP or Osi Umenyoria. This San Francisco defense is much better than Green Bay's defense. Eli needs to chip away and keep them on the field so that they get tired out rather than going for the home run play.
The game's in San Francisco, which will help the Niners keep it close. But the Giants are playing at another level right now. In 2007, a regular season home loss to the undefeated Patriots gave them the confidence that they rode to a Super Bowl title. This year's script is so remarkably similar it's scary. The confidence-building home loss to an undefeated team was against the Packers. They faced the Packers again in the playoffs, and this time they won. Sound familiar? Look out 49ers. There's nothing stopping this Giants train until it pulls into Indianapolis.
Last Week: 4-0
Playoffs: 7-1
Overall: 174-90
Thursday, January 19, 2012
Women's Olympic Basketball Selections
Yesterday I picked the 12 NBA players I think should make the Olympic men's basketball roster. Today, it's time to give the women their equal share. The women's Olympic roster always has an interesting dynamic because the WNBA takes a month off in the middle of its season so that its players can play for their national teams. That's why I expect to see many of the usual suspects in London.
For starters, Sue Bird and Diana Taurasi are no-doubt-about-it selections. They played together at UConn, play together in Russia during the WNBA's off-season, and have been teammates on the national team pretty much that entire time. Bird is the best point guard in the WNBA, and Taurasi is one of the best pure scorers in women's basketball. They both won Olympic gold in Athens and Beijing. In London, they'll go for number three.
UConn is obviously a women's basketball powerhouse. It shouldn't be a surprise, then, that Bird and Taurasi aren't the only Huskies in the mix. In fact, I've got five. Maya Moore's about as obvious as Bird and Taurasi. Without a doubt, she's the best player in the game. After back-to-back national titles, a 90-game winning streak and three national Player of the Year awards at UConn, she only won WNBA Rookie of the Year honors while leading the Minnesota Lynx to their first championship last season. With Lisa Leslie retired and Bird and Taurasi playing in perhaps their last Olympics, Moore will be the face of the national team for the next 10 years.
The other two UConn players were also part of the winning streak. Tina Charles is perhaps one of the most underrated dominant players I've ever seen. It's not really her fault. She was always overshadowed by Maya Moore, but UConn doesn't go on that winning streak without her controlling the paint. Charles was the No. 1 pick in the WNBA Draft in 2010, then won Rookie of the Year honors with the Connecticut Sun. Another Connecticut Husky and Connecticut Sun who should be on the team is Renee Montgomery. Her playing time would probably be limited as the third point guard, but Geno Auriemma loves Montgomery. I can't see him not including her on the Olympic team.
Now that the UConn contingent is complete, it's time to move on to the group from Tennessee. I've got two Lady Vols on the team. Both should also be obvious. Tamika Catchings is another national team staple. She was a starter at both the 2008 Olympics and 2010 World Championships. No chance she's not in London. Ditto about Candace Parker. We haven't heard much from the girl CP3 lately (mainly because she was busy having a baby), but if she's healthy, her status as one of the best all-around players in women's basketball makes Parker a lock for her second Olympic team.
Seven down, five to go. Sylvia Fowles graduated to "best post player" status with the retirement of Lisa Leslie. Charles started over her at the 2010 World Championships, but it really doesn't make a difference which one starts. They're far-and-away the two best centers in the WNBA. Fowles is so athletic it's scary. Angel McCoughtry should be another lock. She kind of just exploded onto the scene when she led Louisville to the National Championship Game. She's since taken the Atlanta Dream to the WNBA Finals in each of the last two seasons. Cappie Pondexter was a reserve on the 2008 Olympic team, and she could be a valuable contributor off the bench again in London. Ditto for Candice Wiggins, who's surprisingly never been on the Senior National Team at a major tournament. If it were up to me, that would change.
The last spot is a little tougher. I'm tempted to say Swin Cash will be in the mix, but I don't think she brings anything to the table that's above and beyond some of the other candidates. If she were to make the team, it would be easy to think Geno was just picking favorites from UConn. Looking at the 27-player preliminary list, I've narrowed it down to three. And it's really just a matter of preference. You could take Lindsay Whalen and have an extra guard. I wouldn't, though, Whalen would be the fourth point guard on the roster, and that's too many. So, now we're left with Candice Dupree and Brittany Griner. Dupree's 6'2 and she can play both forward and center. Plus, she has the international experience. Dupree started five games at the 2010 World Championships. Then there's Griner. She's still only a junior at Baylor, but there's no denying that she's a unique talent. Would it be worthwhile to take her to London for the experience, even though she wouldn't get that much playing time? After all, along with Maya Moore, Griner's going to be a stalwart for the national team for years to come. I like the idea of taking Griner for the experience, but Dupree already has that experience, is much more seasoned in the international game, and is a little more versatile. That's why I'm taking her with the 12th spot.
So, here's the rundown:
Guards-Sue Bird (Storm), Renee Montgomery (Sun), Cappie Pondexter (Liberty), Diana Taurasi (Mercury), Candice Wiggins (Lynx)
Forwards-Tamika Catchings (Fever), Candace Dupree (Mercury), Angel McCoughtry (Dream), Maya Moore (Lynx), Candace Parker (Sparks)
Centers-Tina Charles (Sun), Sylvia Fowles (Sky)
As for the starters, Bird, Taurasi and Catchings are definites. I'll go with Fowles over Charles at center and Angel McCoughtry at the other forward, although it wouldn't surprise me to see any of those four start.
For starters, Sue Bird and Diana Taurasi are no-doubt-about-it selections. They played together at UConn, play together in Russia during the WNBA's off-season, and have been teammates on the national team pretty much that entire time. Bird is the best point guard in the WNBA, and Taurasi is one of the best pure scorers in women's basketball. They both won Olympic gold in Athens and Beijing. In London, they'll go for number three.
UConn is obviously a women's basketball powerhouse. It shouldn't be a surprise, then, that Bird and Taurasi aren't the only Huskies in the mix. In fact, I've got five. Maya Moore's about as obvious as Bird and Taurasi. Without a doubt, she's the best player in the game. After back-to-back national titles, a 90-game winning streak and three national Player of the Year awards at UConn, she only won WNBA Rookie of the Year honors while leading the Minnesota Lynx to their first championship last season. With Lisa Leslie retired and Bird and Taurasi playing in perhaps their last Olympics, Moore will be the face of the national team for the next 10 years.
The other two UConn players were also part of the winning streak. Tina Charles is perhaps one of the most underrated dominant players I've ever seen. It's not really her fault. She was always overshadowed by Maya Moore, but UConn doesn't go on that winning streak without her controlling the paint. Charles was the No. 1 pick in the WNBA Draft in 2010, then won Rookie of the Year honors with the Connecticut Sun. Another Connecticut Husky and Connecticut Sun who should be on the team is Renee Montgomery. Her playing time would probably be limited as the third point guard, but Geno Auriemma loves Montgomery. I can't see him not including her on the Olympic team.
Now that the UConn contingent is complete, it's time to move on to the group from Tennessee. I've got two Lady Vols on the team. Both should also be obvious. Tamika Catchings is another national team staple. She was a starter at both the 2008 Olympics and 2010 World Championships. No chance she's not in London. Ditto about Candace Parker. We haven't heard much from the girl CP3 lately (mainly because she was busy having a baby), but if she's healthy, her status as one of the best all-around players in women's basketball makes Parker a lock for her second Olympic team.
Seven down, five to go. Sylvia Fowles graduated to "best post player" status with the retirement of Lisa Leslie. Charles started over her at the 2010 World Championships, but it really doesn't make a difference which one starts. They're far-and-away the two best centers in the WNBA. Fowles is so athletic it's scary. Angel McCoughtry should be another lock. She kind of just exploded onto the scene when she led Louisville to the National Championship Game. She's since taken the Atlanta Dream to the WNBA Finals in each of the last two seasons. Cappie Pondexter was a reserve on the 2008 Olympic team, and she could be a valuable contributor off the bench again in London. Ditto for Candice Wiggins, who's surprisingly never been on the Senior National Team at a major tournament. If it were up to me, that would change.
The last spot is a little tougher. I'm tempted to say Swin Cash will be in the mix, but I don't think she brings anything to the table that's above and beyond some of the other candidates. If she were to make the team, it would be easy to think Geno was just picking favorites from UConn. Looking at the 27-player preliminary list, I've narrowed it down to three. And it's really just a matter of preference. You could take Lindsay Whalen and have an extra guard. I wouldn't, though, Whalen would be the fourth point guard on the roster, and that's too many. So, now we're left with Candice Dupree and Brittany Griner. Dupree's 6'2 and she can play both forward and center. Plus, she has the international experience. Dupree started five games at the 2010 World Championships. Then there's Griner. She's still only a junior at Baylor, but there's no denying that she's a unique talent. Would it be worthwhile to take her to London for the experience, even though she wouldn't get that much playing time? After all, along with Maya Moore, Griner's going to be a stalwart for the national team for years to come. I like the idea of taking Griner for the experience, but Dupree already has that experience, is much more seasoned in the international game, and is a little more versatile. That's why I'm taking her with the 12th spot.
So, here's the rundown:
Guards-Sue Bird (Storm), Renee Montgomery (Sun), Cappie Pondexter (Liberty), Diana Taurasi (Mercury), Candice Wiggins (Lynx)
Forwards-Tamika Catchings (Fever), Candace Dupree (Mercury), Angel McCoughtry (Dream), Maya Moore (Lynx), Candace Parker (Sparks)
Centers-Tina Charles (Sun), Sylvia Fowles (Sky)
As for the starters, Bird, Taurasi and Catchings are definites. I'll go with Fowles over Charles at center and Angel McCoughtry at the other forward, although it wouldn't surprise me to see any of those four start.
Wednesday, January 18, 2012
Olympic Basketball Selections
Today's blog is about the NBA. Yes, Joe Brackets fans, it's true. Well, sort of. It's actually more of an Olympic blog (what a surprise!). The other day, USA Basketball announced the 20 players that were still in the running for the 12 spots on the Olympic men's basketball roster. Amazingly, all of the guys who couldn't be bothered to play in the World Championships two years ago suddenly can't wait to put on a USA jersey.
Some of these guys are absolute locks, while others stand virtually no chance of actually going to London. Before I reveal my 12 choices, here's a look at all 20 who made the cut:
Guards-Chauncey Billups (Clippers), Kobe Bryant (Lakers), Eric Gordon (Hornets), Andre Igoudala (76ers), Chris Paul (Clippers), Derrick Rose (Bulls), Dwayne Wade (Heat), Russell Westbrook (Thunder), Deron Williams (Nets)
Forwards-LaMarcus Aldridge (Blazers), Carmelo Anthony (Knicks), Chris Bosh (Heat), Kevin Durant (Thunder), Rudy Gay (Grizzlies), Blake Griffin (Clippers), LeBron James (Heat), Kevin Love (Timberwolves), Lamar Odom (Mavericks)
Centers-Tyson Chandler (Knicks), Dwight Howard (Magic)
The way I see it, there are nine players who will definitely be in London. Kevin Durant single-handedly won the World Championship two years ago, making it so these guys wouldn't have to qualify last summer. That alone puts him on the team. Kobe Bryant is Kobe Bryant. If he wants to play in London, he gets to. Ditto with Dwight Howard. He's the best center in the NBA. Likewise LeBron's got to be on the team. And if he's there, you've got to take his cronies Wade and Bosh. Like LeBron (and Dwayne Wade), Carmelo Anthony was on that team that settled for the bronze in 2004 before playing for the 2008 "Redeem Team." Another guy who was a member of the Beijing team is Chris Paul. They need a point guard, so his trip to London should be secure. If Paul isn't the starting point guard, Derrick Rose will be. Either way, they'll both be on the team.
Five guys have absolutely no shot. If they hadn't said it in the press release from USA Basketball, I wouldn't even know that Andre Igoudala plays for the 76ers. He'd be my 20th choice out of these 20 guys. Likewise, I have no idea who Eric Gordon is. Both of them apparently played in the 2010 World Championships. I guess that's why they're on this list. But there's no way they make the team with the NBA's A-listers back in the mix. LaMarcus Aldridge and Rudy Gay have no chance, either. How many forwards can one team have? Chauncey Billups is a nice guy who's had a nice career, but that's not enough to make the cut. The Olympic team doesn't need a token old guy to sit on the bench next to the coaches.
So, that leaves six players for three spots. Either Russell Westbrook or Deron Williams will make it as an extra guard, but not both. It's really just a matter of preference. Westbrook might be the better player, but Williams was on the gold medal-winning team in Beijing. I'm not saying the fact that he was on the 2008 team gives him any sort of edge, though. But the fact that he has more international experience and would probably be more comfortable serving as a third point guard that doesn't play a whole lot than Westbrook would makes him my choice.
Now we're left with Tyson Chandler, Blake Griffin, Kevin Love and Lamar Odom. Picking two of those four is a little more difficult. Chandler's the only other center on the preliminary roster, so do you take him for his size? Odom is technically a forward, but he's extremely versatile. Do you need another guy like that, though? Blake Griffin is electrifying and his dunks are spectacular. But this isn't the NBA All-Star Game. How would he fit into the equation on a team that already includes Kobe, LeBron and Howard? Everything Kevin Love does other guys on the team do, too. But he's a hell of a rebounder. Is that enough reason to take him?
In my eyes, you take one of the two scorers (Odom or Griffin) and one of the two rebounders (Chandler or Love). You can sacrifice Chandler's size because of the athleticism others bring. Besides, you need a token white guy (was that racist?). So, congratulations Kevin Love. That leaves us with the hardest decision of all: Odom or Griffin. If it was up to a fan vote, the choice would obviously be Griffin. But it's not. Even still, Griffin probably brings a little more to the table than Mr. Kardashian. He can provide the rebounding that you're giving up by not taking Chandler. I'm taking Griffin. Another reason for taking Griffin and Love: even though neither one will play that much in London, they'll both be locks for Rio and the faces of USA Basketball for the next decade. It'll be important for them to get that first Olympic experience, just like LeBron and Carmelo got in Athens.
So, that's my team. And for fun, I'll assign them jersey numbers:
4-Chris Paul, 5-Derrick Rose, 6-LeBron James, 7-Carmelo Anthony, 8-Deron Williams, 9-Dwayne Wade, 10-Kobe Bryant, 11-Dwight Howard, 12-Chris Bosh, 13-Blake Griffin, 14-Kevin Love, 15-Kevin Durant
As for my starting lineup, it's Paul at the point, Kobe at the 2, LeBron and Durant at forward with Howard at center.
Some of these guys are absolute locks, while others stand virtually no chance of actually going to London. Before I reveal my 12 choices, here's a look at all 20 who made the cut:
Guards-Chauncey Billups (Clippers), Kobe Bryant (Lakers), Eric Gordon (Hornets), Andre Igoudala (76ers), Chris Paul (Clippers), Derrick Rose (Bulls), Dwayne Wade (Heat), Russell Westbrook (Thunder), Deron Williams (Nets)
Forwards-LaMarcus Aldridge (Blazers), Carmelo Anthony (Knicks), Chris Bosh (Heat), Kevin Durant (Thunder), Rudy Gay (Grizzlies), Blake Griffin (Clippers), LeBron James (Heat), Kevin Love (Timberwolves), Lamar Odom (Mavericks)
Centers-Tyson Chandler (Knicks), Dwight Howard (Magic)
The way I see it, there are nine players who will definitely be in London. Kevin Durant single-handedly won the World Championship two years ago, making it so these guys wouldn't have to qualify last summer. That alone puts him on the team. Kobe Bryant is Kobe Bryant. If he wants to play in London, he gets to. Ditto with Dwight Howard. He's the best center in the NBA. Likewise LeBron's got to be on the team. And if he's there, you've got to take his cronies Wade and Bosh. Like LeBron (and Dwayne Wade), Carmelo Anthony was on that team that settled for the bronze in 2004 before playing for the 2008 "Redeem Team." Another guy who was a member of the Beijing team is Chris Paul. They need a point guard, so his trip to London should be secure. If Paul isn't the starting point guard, Derrick Rose will be. Either way, they'll both be on the team.
Five guys have absolutely no shot. If they hadn't said it in the press release from USA Basketball, I wouldn't even know that Andre Igoudala plays for the 76ers. He'd be my 20th choice out of these 20 guys. Likewise, I have no idea who Eric Gordon is. Both of them apparently played in the 2010 World Championships. I guess that's why they're on this list. But there's no way they make the team with the NBA's A-listers back in the mix. LaMarcus Aldridge and Rudy Gay have no chance, either. How many forwards can one team have? Chauncey Billups is a nice guy who's had a nice career, but that's not enough to make the cut. The Olympic team doesn't need a token old guy to sit on the bench next to the coaches.
So, that leaves six players for three spots. Either Russell Westbrook or Deron Williams will make it as an extra guard, but not both. It's really just a matter of preference. Westbrook might be the better player, but Williams was on the gold medal-winning team in Beijing. I'm not saying the fact that he was on the 2008 team gives him any sort of edge, though. But the fact that he has more international experience and would probably be more comfortable serving as a third point guard that doesn't play a whole lot than Westbrook would makes him my choice.
Now we're left with Tyson Chandler, Blake Griffin, Kevin Love and Lamar Odom. Picking two of those four is a little more difficult. Chandler's the only other center on the preliminary roster, so do you take him for his size? Odom is technically a forward, but he's extremely versatile. Do you need another guy like that, though? Blake Griffin is electrifying and his dunks are spectacular. But this isn't the NBA All-Star Game. How would he fit into the equation on a team that already includes Kobe, LeBron and Howard? Everything Kevin Love does other guys on the team do, too. But he's a hell of a rebounder. Is that enough reason to take him?
In my eyes, you take one of the two scorers (Odom or Griffin) and one of the two rebounders (Chandler or Love). You can sacrifice Chandler's size because of the athleticism others bring. Besides, you need a token white guy (was that racist?). So, congratulations Kevin Love. That leaves us with the hardest decision of all: Odom or Griffin. If it was up to a fan vote, the choice would obviously be Griffin. But it's not. Even still, Griffin probably brings a little more to the table than Mr. Kardashian. He can provide the rebounding that you're giving up by not taking Chandler. I'm taking Griffin. Another reason for taking Griffin and Love: even though neither one will play that much in London, they'll both be locks for Rio and the faces of USA Basketball for the next decade. It'll be important for them to get that first Olympic experience, just like LeBron and Carmelo got in Athens.
So, that's my team. And for fun, I'll assign them jersey numbers:
4-Chris Paul, 5-Derrick Rose, 6-LeBron James, 7-Carmelo Anthony, 8-Deron Williams, 9-Dwayne Wade, 10-Kobe Bryant, 11-Dwight Howard, 12-Chris Bosh, 13-Blake Griffin, 14-Kevin Love, 15-Kevin Durant
As for my starting lineup, it's Paul at the point, Kobe at the 2, LeBron and Durant at forward with Howard at center.
Sunday, January 15, 2012
Australian Open Preview
It's so weird that the Australian Open takes place in the middle of January. The year just started, but here we are with tennis' first major upon us. I've always said that the Australian Open is the hardest of the four Grand Slams to predict. It takes place so early in the season that you have no idea what the fitness level for some of the top players is like. You also have no idea who's going to emerge as a force to be reckoned with this year. There's inevitably going to be some upsets in any Grand Slam tournament, but I think it's especially true Down Under.
But no matter who gets upset, there's little doubt that the men's tournament will probably be won by one of three people. It's the same three guys that win every tournament: Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. World No. 4 Andy Murray can't be counted out either. He's been to the finals in Australia in each of the last two years. I'd be very surprised to see somebody other than one of those four to take home the trophy.
Looking at the draw, one thing's for certain. For the first time since the 2005 French Open, there's no possible way for the final to be Federer vs. Nadal. Since Djokovic is No. 1, it's possible for them to meet in the semis, and that's the case here. That could be an epic semifinal, especially with the comments Nadal made about Federer earlier this week. As hard to believe as it might be, if Federer doesn't win this tournament, we'll have gone a whole two years' worth of Grand Slams without him winning one (his last Grand Slam title was the 2010 Australian Open). We could also be looking at our third consecutive Roger-less final if he doesn't win that semi. Nadal always seems to have his number in Grand Slams, but I like the way Roger ended 2011. He's not done, and he's going to want to prove it in 2012. I can see an inspired Roger Federer really making a statement in this tournament.
Novak Djokovic is the defending champion, and his victory here really set the wheels in motion for a dominant 2011 season. I don't see Djokovic dominating men's tennis anywhere near as much as he did last season, but he has won each of last two Grand Slams and has to be considered the favorite. He's got some heavy hitters (Andy Roddick, David Ferrer, Radek Stepanek, Richard Gasquet) in his section of the draw, but I'd be very surprised not to see Djokovic at least reach the semis. As I mentioned already, Andy Murray can't be counted out. There's something about Australia that brings out his best tennis. But he's got a very tough potential quarterfinal against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, the Frenchman who made the final here a couple years ago. Murray will have his hands full in that match, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Tsonga break the Big Four's stranglehold and reach the semis.
In fact, I'm taking Tsonga to reach the semis, where he'll lose to Djokovic. Roger vs. Rafa will be a round early, but now that we know there's some animosity between these two, that adds some (I think) necessary animosity to their rivalry. The winner of that match could dictate what kind of a year it'll be for Roger. Federer blew a two-set lead in the semis at both Wimbledon and the US Open last year. It sounds weird to say that the semifinal would be a "must win" for him, but I think it is. I also think he will win...before losing to Djokovic in the finals.
On the women's side, this might be the most wide open era in the history of the game. Truly anybody can win. How else do you explain the last three Grand Slam champions (Li Na, Petra Kvitova, Samantha Stosur) being completely random first-time winners? This year's Australian Open is no exception. I can't even handicap it. There are simply too many people with a chance to win.
Top-ranked Caroline Wozniacki has been out to justify her ranking with her first Grand Slam title for quite some time now. She probably should've won here last year, but had a complete meltdown against Li in the semis. Wozniacki's still the world's best player, but she wasn't done any favors with the draw. Kim Clijsters and Li Na could meet in a rematch of last year's final in the fourth round, with the winner then drawn against Wozniacki in the quarters. The road seems a little easier for No. 3 Victoria Azarenka, who has a relatively easy section of the draw. I think Azarenka is a legitimate contender for the title.
As long as Serena Williams is entered in a Grand Slam tournament, you have to at least include her in the discussion. Well, Serena's here, and she ended 2011 on a tear. But she's seeded 12th and had to drop out of the warm-up tournament, so I'm not really sure I see her lasting deep into the second week. Especially since Maria Sharapova, Vera Zvonareva, Dominika Cibulkova and Svetlana Kuznetsova are all in her section of the draw. Only one of the five can make the semis, but whichever one does just might win the whole thing. Of the three most recent Grand Slam winners, Kvitova's the one with the brighest future. Li and Stosur are veterans who'll probably be one Slam wonders, but Kvitova has risen to No. 2 in the world. Even still, I'm not sure her game holds up in the Melbourne heat. Stosur's the hometown favorite, but I don't see her winning. Everything clicked for her at the US Open. She needs lightning to strike twice in order to win the Australian Open. Although, the Aussie fans haven't had a legitimate Australian contender to cheer for on the women's side in quite some time, so that might make a difference.
As for the picks, this is tough. I think Wozniacki gets by Clijsters in the quarters, but once again falls short in her quest to win a Grand Slam title, as she'll fall to Azarenka in the semis. On the other side of the draw, I'm going with Zvonareva to get out of that monster Serena-Sharapova section, and a surprise in the bottom section of the draw. Even with Kvitova, Stosur and former world No. 1 (and former Australian Open finalist) Ana Ivanovic, I'm going with Maria Kirilenko to get to the semifinals against her countrywoman. Zvonareva beats Kirilenko in that semi, then loses to Azarenka, who takes her first Grand Slam title.
But in a field that's this wide open, you could probably pick a name out of a hat and there'd be a decent chance she'd end up in the women's semifinals. While you're surprised if it's NOT one of the Big Three on the men's side, you never know who's going to make a run among the women. That's part of what makes the Australian Open so fun, though.
But no matter who gets upset, there's little doubt that the men's tournament will probably be won by one of three people. It's the same three guys that win every tournament: Novak Djokovic, Rafael Nadal and Roger Federer. World No. 4 Andy Murray can't be counted out either. He's been to the finals in Australia in each of the last two years. I'd be very surprised to see somebody other than one of those four to take home the trophy.
Looking at the draw, one thing's for certain. For the first time since the 2005 French Open, there's no possible way for the final to be Federer vs. Nadal. Since Djokovic is No. 1, it's possible for them to meet in the semis, and that's the case here. That could be an epic semifinal, especially with the comments Nadal made about Federer earlier this week. As hard to believe as it might be, if Federer doesn't win this tournament, we'll have gone a whole two years' worth of Grand Slams without him winning one (his last Grand Slam title was the 2010 Australian Open). We could also be looking at our third consecutive Roger-less final if he doesn't win that semi. Nadal always seems to have his number in Grand Slams, but I like the way Roger ended 2011. He's not done, and he's going to want to prove it in 2012. I can see an inspired Roger Federer really making a statement in this tournament.
Novak Djokovic is the defending champion, and his victory here really set the wheels in motion for a dominant 2011 season. I don't see Djokovic dominating men's tennis anywhere near as much as he did last season, but he has won each of last two Grand Slams and has to be considered the favorite. He's got some heavy hitters (Andy Roddick, David Ferrer, Radek Stepanek, Richard Gasquet) in his section of the draw, but I'd be very surprised not to see Djokovic at least reach the semis. As I mentioned already, Andy Murray can't be counted out. There's something about Australia that brings out his best tennis. But he's got a very tough potential quarterfinal against Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, the Frenchman who made the final here a couple years ago. Murray will have his hands full in that match, and it wouldn't surprise me to see Tsonga break the Big Four's stranglehold and reach the semis.
In fact, I'm taking Tsonga to reach the semis, where he'll lose to Djokovic. Roger vs. Rafa will be a round early, but now that we know there's some animosity between these two, that adds some (I think) necessary animosity to their rivalry. The winner of that match could dictate what kind of a year it'll be for Roger. Federer blew a two-set lead in the semis at both Wimbledon and the US Open last year. It sounds weird to say that the semifinal would be a "must win" for him, but I think it is. I also think he will win...before losing to Djokovic in the finals.
On the women's side, this might be the most wide open era in the history of the game. Truly anybody can win. How else do you explain the last three Grand Slam champions (Li Na, Petra Kvitova, Samantha Stosur) being completely random first-time winners? This year's Australian Open is no exception. I can't even handicap it. There are simply too many people with a chance to win.
Top-ranked Caroline Wozniacki has been out to justify her ranking with her first Grand Slam title for quite some time now. She probably should've won here last year, but had a complete meltdown against Li in the semis. Wozniacki's still the world's best player, but she wasn't done any favors with the draw. Kim Clijsters and Li Na could meet in a rematch of last year's final in the fourth round, with the winner then drawn against Wozniacki in the quarters. The road seems a little easier for No. 3 Victoria Azarenka, who has a relatively easy section of the draw. I think Azarenka is a legitimate contender for the title.
As long as Serena Williams is entered in a Grand Slam tournament, you have to at least include her in the discussion. Well, Serena's here, and she ended 2011 on a tear. But she's seeded 12th and had to drop out of the warm-up tournament, so I'm not really sure I see her lasting deep into the second week. Especially since Maria Sharapova, Vera Zvonareva, Dominika Cibulkova and Svetlana Kuznetsova are all in her section of the draw. Only one of the five can make the semis, but whichever one does just might win the whole thing. Of the three most recent Grand Slam winners, Kvitova's the one with the brighest future. Li and Stosur are veterans who'll probably be one Slam wonders, but Kvitova has risen to No. 2 in the world. Even still, I'm not sure her game holds up in the Melbourne heat. Stosur's the hometown favorite, but I don't see her winning. Everything clicked for her at the US Open. She needs lightning to strike twice in order to win the Australian Open. Although, the Aussie fans haven't had a legitimate Australian contender to cheer for on the women's side in quite some time, so that might make a difference.
As for the picks, this is tough. I think Wozniacki gets by Clijsters in the quarters, but once again falls short in her quest to win a Grand Slam title, as she'll fall to Azarenka in the semis. On the other side of the draw, I'm going with Zvonareva to get out of that monster Serena-Sharapova section, and a surprise in the bottom section of the draw. Even with Kvitova, Stosur and former world No. 1 (and former Australian Open finalist) Ana Ivanovic, I'm going with Maria Kirilenko to get to the semifinals against her countrywoman. Zvonareva beats Kirilenko in that semi, then loses to Azarenka, who takes her first Grand Slam title.
But in a field that's this wide open, you could probably pick a name out of a hat and there'd be a decent chance she'd end up in the women's semifinals. While you're surprised if it's NOT one of the Big Three on the men's side, you never know who's going to make a run among the women. That's part of what makes the Australian Open so fun, though.
Friday, January 13, 2012
NFL Picks: Divisional Playoffs
For many football fans, this weekend is as good as it gets. It's not just playoff football, it's the eight best teams in the NFL (well, the seven best and Denver), and the Super Bowl is just two wins away. I don't expect the Divisional Playoffs to disappoint, especially in the NFC, where we have two outstanding matchups. I wouldn't be surprised to see either NFC game go either way. In the AFC, I can't say the same.
Saints (14-3) at 49ers (13-3): San Francisco-New Orleans is a popular pick to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl, but the Saints need to beat the 49ers first. The Saints are good. There's no arguing that. But what everyone's conveniently forgetting is how good the 49ers are. San Francisco earned a bye for a reason. And I think that's an important element in this game. If it was in the Superdome, the Saints offense would run up and down the field like they did against the Falcons, Panthers and Lions. New Orleans would win by 20. In San Francisco, things will be different.
For starters, the 49ers have a top-notch defense. It won't be as easy for the Saints to march up and down the field as everybody thinks. The Saints take pride in this running game that they supposedly have. Seeing as I've never seen it, I don't believe this New Orleans running game exists. They'll need to find one in order to keep the 49ers' defense on the field long enough to get tired. The 49ers, on the other hand, have a very good running game. Alex Smith doesn't need to do much. He just needs to turn around and give the ball to Frank Gore while doing enough not to lose the game. Keeping that New Orleans offense off the field will be key. If it comes down to special teams, it's clearly advantage San Francisco. The 49ers have the best special teams in football. No one gives the 49ers enough credit for being as good as they are. I think the most underrated team in football pulls out another one. Four David Akers field goals and a Gore touchdown gives San Francisco a 19-17 win.
Tebows (9-8) at Patriots (13-3): New England-Am I the only one who doesn't get Tebowmania? Maybe I missed the boat, but I don't see the obession with this guy. He was voted "America's Favorite Athlete" in a recent ESPN.com poll. Seriously? Denver made about three plays against Pittsburgh. That was enough to win, so I give them credit for that, but does anybody think they actually have any sort of a chance in New England? It was the Patriots that gave everyone the blueprint for how to beat him. (I'm surprised it took two months for somebody to figure it out. He's not a good quarterback. Make him stand in the pocket.) I'm not saying New England's defense isn't without its flaws, and I certainly don't think of them as a Super Bowl team, but that shouldn't matter that much. You know that the Patriots are salivating at the chance to play Tebow again instead of potentially losing to the Steelers.
This is truly a case of picking between the lesser of two evils. I hate the Patriots, but Tebowmania seriously needs to end. CBS loves its Saturday night Tebow vs. Brady matchup and the ratings it'll present. Again, I have no idea what the fascination with this guy is. But if given my choice between Tebow and Brady, believe it or not, I'll actually take Brady. The fact that Brady's team is better obviously helps, too.
Texans (11-6) at Ravens (12-4): Baltimore-The Ravens worked all year to finally beat the Steelers in the AFC South and get a home playoff game. Mission accomplished. Now they need to take advantage of that opportunity. It helps that, in my opinion, Baltimore is the best team in the AFC. The Texans went into the playoffs on a three-game losing streak, but once again looked like the team that started the season 10-3 in their win over Cincinnati. This is a very interesting matchup. The Texans are capable of winning, but they'll need to do a lot of things right in order to do so.
As always, the Ravens' bread-and-butter is their superb defense. But they also have one of the best all-around running backs in the game in Ray Rice. Will the Texans be able to stop him? If they can, Joe Flacco will need to be the one wins the game. Likewise, Baltimore needs to stop Houston's Pro Bowl running back Arian Foster. T.J. Yates did enough to win last week, but the Bengals' defense is nowhere near as good as Baltimore's. Whoever runs the ball better (or stops the run better) is going to win this game. I think that'll be the Ravens. Also, let's not forget the fact that it's supposed to snow in Baltimore on Sunday. For a team from Texas that's built to run the ball, that and the cold won't be a good combination. And just like their pumped up fans helped the Texans last week, the Ravens faithful won't need any extra motivation to get up for this game. Expect the Ravens to take full advantage of the crowd and get that home playoff win.
Giants (10-7) at Packers (15-1): Giants-This is by far the best matchup of the divisional round. Was any team more impressive last week than the New York Football Giants? The Giants defense is officially back. And that scares the Packers. More than anything, Green Bay wanted an Atlanta win last week. Because the Packers know first-hand how dangerous the Giants can be. The Giants defense didn't play well when these two met in Week 13. That's the primary reason Green Bay won that game to stay undefeated.
It's not going to be 38-35 again in Lambeau Field in January. Aaron Rodgers was sensational all season, which is why he's the likely MVP, but if the Packers win, he won't be the reason. This game's going to be won on the ground. In that frigid air, throwing the ball's going to be tough, reducing Rodgers and Eli to that dreaded role of "game managers." That's why I think the Giants have a real chance here. There's no questioning Rodgers' brilliance all season. If the Packers' offense is lacking anything, though, it's a solid running game. They'd love to simply have Rodgers air it out, which I'm not sure they'll be able to do. Especially since they'll have to go against the Giants' pass rush if they try. The Giants on the other hand, have a solid running game with Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs. It doesn't even really matter if Bradshaw plays. They both have the experience. Green Bay's defense is obviously good, but not as good as the offense. If the Giants are able to establish the run, the Packers will have to honor it, Eli will be able to go to the air, and Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks will take advantage of the one-on-one coverage.
I also think that despite the loss, the Week 13 game gave the Giants a ton of confidence. I compare this to four years ago, when the Giants played perhaps their best game of the season in a Week 17 loss to the undefeated Patriots, then beat New England a month later in the Super Bowl. Oh yeah, they beat the Packers in Lambeau in the NFC Championship Game that season, too. There are still a number of guys from that 2007 roster on this Giants team. They remember that. They also remember losing in Green Bay in a de-facto playoff game last season in Week 16 to effectively hand the Packers a wild card spot they rode all the way to the Lombardi Trophy. Call me an optimistic Giants fan, but I think history will repeat itself. The Giants are playing their best football of the season right now. Sure, they're on the road for the first time in a month. But that doesn't matter. The Giants pull off the upset in a close one.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 3-1
Overall: 170-90
Saints (14-3) at 49ers (13-3): San Francisco-New Orleans is a popular pick to represent the NFC in the Super Bowl, but the Saints need to beat the 49ers first. The Saints are good. There's no arguing that. But what everyone's conveniently forgetting is how good the 49ers are. San Francisco earned a bye for a reason. And I think that's an important element in this game. If it was in the Superdome, the Saints offense would run up and down the field like they did against the Falcons, Panthers and Lions. New Orleans would win by 20. In San Francisco, things will be different.
For starters, the 49ers have a top-notch defense. It won't be as easy for the Saints to march up and down the field as everybody thinks. The Saints take pride in this running game that they supposedly have. Seeing as I've never seen it, I don't believe this New Orleans running game exists. They'll need to find one in order to keep the 49ers' defense on the field long enough to get tired. The 49ers, on the other hand, have a very good running game. Alex Smith doesn't need to do much. He just needs to turn around and give the ball to Frank Gore while doing enough not to lose the game. Keeping that New Orleans offense off the field will be key. If it comes down to special teams, it's clearly advantage San Francisco. The 49ers have the best special teams in football. No one gives the 49ers enough credit for being as good as they are. I think the most underrated team in football pulls out another one. Four David Akers field goals and a Gore touchdown gives San Francisco a 19-17 win.
Tebows (9-8) at Patriots (13-3): New England-Am I the only one who doesn't get Tebowmania? Maybe I missed the boat, but I don't see the obession with this guy. He was voted "America's Favorite Athlete" in a recent ESPN.com poll. Seriously? Denver made about three plays against Pittsburgh. That was enough to win, so I give them credit for that, but does anybody think they actually have any sort of a chance in New England? It was the Patriots that gave everyone the blueprint for how to beat him. (I'm surprised it took two months for somebody to figure it out. He's not a good quarterback. Make him stand in the pocket.) I'm not saying New England's defense isn't without its flaws, and I certainly don't think of them as a Super Bowl team, but that shouldn't matter that much. You know that the Patriots are salivating at the chance to play Tebow again instead of potentially losing to the Steelers.
This is truly a case of picking between the lesser of two evils. I hate the Patriots, but Tebowmania seriously needs to end. CBS loves its Saturday night Tebow vs. Brady matchup and the ratings it'll present. Again, I have no idea what the fascination with this guy is. But if given my choice between Tebow and Brady, believe it or not, I'll actually take Brady. The fact that Brady's team is better obviously helps, too.
Texans (11-6) at Ravens (12-4): Baltimore-The Ravens worked all year to finally beat the Steelers in the AFC South and get a home playoff game. Mission accomplished. Now they need to take advantage of that opportunity. It helps that, in my opinion, Baltimore is the best team in the AFC. The Texans went into the playoffs on a three-game losing streak, but once again looked like the team that started the season 10-3 in their win over Cincinnati. This is a very interesting matchup. The Texans are capable of winning, but they'll need to do a lot of things right in order to do so.
As always, the Ravens' bread-and-butter is their superb defense. But they also have one of the best all-around running backs in the game in Ray Rice. Will the Texans be able to stop him? If they can, Joe Flacco will need to be the one wins the game. Likewise, Baltimore needs to stop Houston's Pro Bowl running back Arian Foster. T.J. Yates did enough to win last week, but the Bengals' defense is nowhere near as good as Baltimore's. Whoever runs the ball better (or stops the run better) is going to win this game. I think that'll be the Ravens. Also, let's not forget the fact that it's supposed to snow in Baltimore on Sunday. For a team from Texas that's built to run the ball, that and the cold won't be a good combination. And just like their pumped up fans helped the Texans last week, the Ravens faithful won't need any extra motivation to get up for this game. Expect the Ravens to take full advantage of the crowd and get that home playoff win.
Giants (10-7) at Packers (15-1): Giants-This is by far the best matchup of the divisional round. Was any team more impressive last week than the New York Football Giants? The Giants defense is officially back. And that scares the Packers. More than anything, Green Bay wanted an Atlanta win last week. Because the Packers know first-hand how dangerous the Giants can be. The Giants defense didn't play well when these two met in Week 13. That's the primary reason Green Bay won that game to stay undefeated.
It's not going to be 38-35 again in Lambeau Field in January. Aaron Rodgers was sensational all season, which is why he's the likely MVP, but if the Packers win, he won't be the reason. This game's going to be won on the ground. In that frigid air, throwing the ball's going to be tough, reducing Rodgers and Eli to that dreaded role of "game managers." That's why I think the Giants have a real chance here. There's no questioning Rodgers' brilliance all season. If the Packers' offense is lacking anything, though, it's a solid running game. They'd love to simply have Rodgers air it out, which I'm not sure they'll be able to do. Especially since they'll have to go against the Giants' pass rush if they try. The Giants on the other hand, have a solid running game with Ahmad Bradshaw and Brandon Jacobs. It doesn't even really matter if Bradshaw plays. They both have the experience. Green Bay's defense is obviously good, but not as good as the offense. If the Giants are able to establish the run, the Packers will have to honor it, Eli will be able to go to the air, and Victor Cruz and Hakeem Nicks will take advantage of the one-on-one coverage.
I also think that despite the loss, the Week 13 game gave the Giants a ton of confidence. I compare this to four years ago, when the Giants played perhaps their best game of the season in a Week 17 loss to the undefeated Patriots, then beat New England a month later in the Super Bowl. Oh yeah, they beat the Packers in Lambeau in the NFC Championship Game that season, too. There are still a number of guys from that 2007 roster on this Giants team. They remember that. They also remember losing in Green Bay in a de-facto playoff game last season in Week 16 to effectively hand the Packers a wild card spot they rode all the way to the Lombardi Trophy. Call me an optimistic Giants fan, but I think history will repeat itself. The Giants are playing their best football of the season right now. Sure, they're on the road for the first time in a month. But that doesn't matter. The Giants pull off the upset in a close one.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 3-1
Overall: 170-90
Thursday, January 12, 2012
My New NHL Realignment Plan
So...apparently I wasn't the only one who thought the NHL's proposed realignment was stupid. The players union vetoed the new four-conference plan that was supposed to go into effect next season. As a result, Winnipeg will remain in the Southeast Division in 2012-13. This, of course, is temporary. NHL realignment is eventually going to happen in some form, but I don't think I'm the only one who's glad the proposed plan isn't going to happen.
The NHL, of course, is blaming the union, saying things like "a majority of our clubs supported it" (26-4 to be exact, so there were at least four that didn't, and probably more that just agreed "for the good of the league") and that "fans overwhelmingly wanted it" (only the fans that you were willing to listen to). And the quotes from league personnel that they used were from the three teams (Detroit, Dallas, Minnesota) that obviously supported the realignment. What do the owners of the Rangers and Lightning (two of the teams that voted against it) think? My guess is they aren't too upset. (In fact, there are probably a lot of teams in the current Eastern Conference that aren't too upset.)
In their defense, the union's main concerns were valid. They asked for a mock schedule to see what the travel would be like for each team. The NHL didn't give them one. They also weren't happy with the proposed playoff format. The top four per division would advance to the playoffs. So, in two divisions you'd have a 4 out of 7 chance to make the playoffs, while in the two eight-team divisions, your chances would only be 50-50. And, let's use the Patrick "Conference" as an example. Some combination of the Penguins, Flyers, Rangers and Capitals are going to be good every year. What chance would the Islanders and Hurricanes have to EVER make the playoffs?
I'm not saying the NHL's current alignment is perfect. Winnipeg obviously has to be moved out of the Southeast Division. But the changes don't need to be as drastic as the league office seems to think. For starters, they need to stop listening to the Detroit Red Wings' whining. Red Wings, you're stuck in the Western Conference. Deal with it! There are 16 teams in the Eastern time zone, so at least one of them's got to be in the West, and Detroit's further west than everybody else. Besides, you can't move Detroit to the Eastern Conference and have Chicago (the Red Wings' archrival for 85 years) be the only Original Six team in the West. The Red Wings and Blackhawks should remain together. Period.
Besides, the Red Wings don't get screwed by the current alignment anywhere near as much as they think. They've got it better than Dallas. The Stars are stuck in the Pacific Division with the three California teams and Phoenix. That means every division road game they play starts at either 8 or 9 p.m. Central (whereas the Central Division has three teams in the Central time zone, Detroit and Columbus). Minnesota also drew a short straw. The Northwest Division features the Wild (Central time zone), Avalanche (Mountain), and the three in Western Canada.
As I've said all along, the realignment should be modest, keeping the current two-conference, six-division structure. And the team that should move East isn't Detroit (or Columbus). It's Nashville. You know, a team that's actually in the Southeast taking Winnipeg's place in the Southeast Division. The Eastern Conference would look like this:
Atlantic: Devils, Islanders, Rangers, Flyers, Penguins
Northeast: Bruins, Sabres, Canadiens, Senators, Maple Leafs
Southeast: Hurricanes, Panthers, Predators, Lightning, Capitals
I have two proposed alignments for the Western Conference. You've got to keep the four Canadian teams together. You could shift Minnesota to the Central (which they want), but then you wouldn't have that natural Winnipeg-Minnesota rivalry. Dallas would also still be stuck in the Pacific that way. So, the alignment that I favor moves Dallas from the Pacific to the Central and Colorado from the Northwest to the Pacific. Option B only features Minnesota replacing Nashville in the Central. Either way, Winnipeg is placed in the Northwest Division with the other three Canadian teams.
Central: Blackhawks, Blue Jackets, Red Wings, Blues, Stars (or Wild)
Northwest: Flames, Oilers, Canucks, Jets, Wild (or Avalanche)
Pacific: Ducks, Kings, Coyotes, Sharks, Avalanche (or Stars)
Detroit's big gripe is the schedule. Right now, teams play 24 division games (six against each), 40 conference games (four each) and only 18 interconference games. Most of the teams in the West want to have a home-and-home with everybody. There's a way to do that using the current division structure. Here's what I propose:
Division (22 games): 5 against two teams, 6 against the other two
Conference (30 games): 3 against each team
Interconference (30 games): 2 against each team
The playoff structure would remain the same: top eight from each conference, with the three division winners seeded 1-3.
Of course, all this gets blown completely out of the water when Phoenix moves to Quebec. But the NHL can worry about that when the time comes.
The NHL, of course, is blaming the union, saying things like "a majority of our clubs supported it" (26-4 to be exact, so there were at least four that didn't, and probably more that just agreed "for the good of the league") and that "fans overwhelmingly wanted it" (only the fans that you were willing to listen to). And the quotes from league personnel that they used were from the three teams (Detroit, Dallas, Minnesota) that obviously supported the realignment. What do the owners of the Rangers and Lightning (two of the teams that voted against it) think? My guess is they aren't too upset. (In fact, there are probably a lot of teams in the current Eastern Conference that aren't too upset.)
In their defense, the union's main concerns were valid. They asked for a mock schedule to see what the travel would be like for each team. The NHL didn't give them one. They also weren't happy with the proposed playoff format. The top four per division would advance to the playoffs. So, in two divisions you'd have a 4 out of 7 chance to make the playoffs, while in the two eight-team divisions, your chances would only be 50-50. And, let's use the Patrick "Conference" as an example. Some combination of the Penguins, Flyers, Rangers and Capitals are going to be good every year. What chance would the Islanders and Hurricanes have to EVER make the playoffs?
I'm not saying the NHL's current alignment is perfect. Winnipeg obviously has to be moved out of the Southeast Division. But the changes don't need to be as drastic as the league office seems to think. For starters, they need to stop listening to the Detroit Red Wings' whining. Red Wings, you're stuck in the Western Conference. Deal with it! There are 16 teams in the Eastern time zone, so at least one of them's got to be in the West, and Detroit's further west than everybody else. Besides, you can't move Detroit to the Eastern Conference and have Chicago (the Red Wings' archrival for 85 years) be the only Original Six team in the West. The Red Wings and Blackhawks should remain together. Period.
Besides, the Red Wings don't get screwed by the current alignment anywhere near as much as they think. They've got it better than Dallas. The Stars are stuck in the Pacific Division with the three California teams and Phoenix. That means every division road game they play starts at either 8 or 9 p.m. Central (whereas the Central Division has three teams in the Central time zone, Detroit and Columbus). Minnesota also drew a short straw. The Northwest Division features the Wild (Central time zone), Avalanche (Mountain), and the three in Western Canada.
As I've said all along, the realignment should be modest, keeping the current two-conference, six-division structure. And the team that should move East isn't Detroit (or Columbus). It's Nashville. You know, a team that's actually in the Southeast taking Winnipeg's place in the Southeast Division. The Eastern Conference would look like this:
Atlantic: Devils, Islanders, Rangers, Flyers, Penguins
Northeast: Bruins, Sabres, Canadiens, Senators, Maple Leafs
Southeast: Hurricanes, Panthers, Predators, Lightning, Capitals
I have two proposed alignments for the Western Conference. You've got to keep the four Canadian teams together. You could shift Minnesota to the Central (which they want), but then you wouldn't have that natural Winnipeg-Minnesota rivalry. Dallas would also still be stuck in the Pacific that way. So, the alignment that I favor moves Dallas from the Pacific to the Central and Colorado from the Northwest to the Pacific. Option B only features Minnesota replacing Nashville in the Central. Either way, Winnipeg is placed in the Northwest Division with the other three Canadian teams.
Central: Blackhawks, Blue Jackets, Red Wings, Blues, Stars (or Wild)
Northwest: Flames, Oilers, Canucks, Jets, Wild (or Avalanche)
Pacific: Ducks, Kings, Coyotes, Sharks, Avalanche (or Stars)
Detroit's big gripe is the schedule. Right now, teams play 24 division games (six against each), 40 conference games (four each) and only 18 interconference games. Most of the teams in the West want to have a home-and-home with everybody. There's a way to do that using the current division structure. Here's what I propose:
Division (22 games): 5 against two teams, 6 against the other two
Conference (30 games): 3 against each team
Interconference (30 games): 2 against each team
The playoff structure would remain the same: top eight from each conference, with the three division winners seeded 1-3.
Of course, all this gets blown completely out of the water when Phoenix moves to Quebec. But the NHL can worry about that when the time comes.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Baseball Hall of Fame Vote
Tomorrow we find out who, if anybody, joins the late Ron Santo in the Baseball Hall of Fame Class of 2012. To say that this year's class is unimpressive would be a tremendous understatement. Not only is the class of newcomers weak, none of the guys remaining on the ballot from last year immediately strike you as Hall of Famers. And regardless of what their numbers say, it doesn't look like Mark McGwire or Rafael Palmeiro is getting in anytime soon. The fact that the ballots in 2013 and beyond are loaded doesn't help matters either. None of these guys are going to get in next year or the year after or the year after that, so this is probably the best chance to actually get elected that they're going to have.
With that being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see Santo be the only player inducted in July (it's a shame Santo won't be there to give an induction speech that certainly would've been memorable). However, I think the writers are probably somewhat hesitant to go without electing anybody. As a result, I think Barry Larkin will likely get the call. I always considered Larkin a very good player, but I never thought of him as a Hall of Famer. I'd love to see Jack Morris finally get the recognition he deserves as the best pitcher of the 1980s, but he's probably going to fall a bit short. If not for steroids, Mark McGwire would've been a first-ballot inductee. As it is, his vote total has remained consistently around 25 percent since he became eligible. That's not going to change. Ditto for Rafael Palmeiro, who, like Larkin and Fred McGriff, I never really thought of as a Hall of Famer. The class of new guys is so pathetic that it's not even worth mentioning their names. The only guy that's going to even get enough votes to stay on the ballot is Bernie Williams.
Hall of Fame voters are given 10 places on their ballot. If I were a voter, I like to think I'd exhaust all 10 votes (or as close to it as possible) every year. Here's the 10 that I would've voted for in 2012, in order of what I consider their Hall of Fame worthiness:
1. Jack Morris, Starting Pitcher (1977-94 Tigers, Twins, Blue Jays, Indians)-I don't understand why Jack Morris has never received more of a look from Hall of Fame voters, who are probably hung up on his 3.90 career ERA. But Morris was the definition of an ace. He started 14 consecutive Opening Days and Game 1 of the World Series three times (for three different teams). Morris won more games than any other pitcher in the 1980s and had 254 career wins. He was also a five-time All-Star and four-time World Champion. And let's not forget Game 7 in 1991.
2. Mark McGwire, 1st Baseman (1986-2001 Athletics, Cardinals)-Yes, I rank Mark McGwire second among this year's candidates. His steroid use has obviously tainted his numbers in a lot of people's minds, and that's probably not going to change. We're all entitled to our opinion about him, but I'm a member of the minority about the stars of the Steroid Era. I consider McGwire's numbers legitimate, and there's no way anybody can convince me that a 12-time All-Star with 583 career home runs (not to mention that memorable 1998 season) DOESN'T belong in Cooperstown.
3. Barry Larkin, Shortstop (1986-2004 Reds)-My distinction between "great" and "very good" starts at Larkin, which is why I put him third. Personally, I don't see him as a Hall of Famer. But he is the third-best guy on this year's ballot. A lot of the argument for Larkin is that he was one of the most underrated players in history. Seeing as he played shortstop in the National League at the same time as Ozzie Smith that might be true. A 12-time All-Star and the 1995 NL MVP, Larkin was very good for a long time. That's enough to warrant consideration, but wouldn't be enough to get him elected in any year other than this one.
4. Edgar Martinez, Designated Hitter (1987-2004 Mariners)-He's the greatest DH in history, and people will eventually need to come to terms with the fact that DH is a position. Sure, Paul Molitor's in, but he only became a DH late in his career. Edgar never really had another position. Regardless, he's the all-time leader among DHs in a number of important statistics. He hit .312 in his career and had a ridiculous 514 doubles (didn't it seem like he got a double every time up?). I don't know how long it'll take the voters to finally put a DH in the Hall of Fame, but when they do, it better be Edgar Martinez.
5. Jeff Bagwell, 1st Baseman (1991-2005 Astros)-Without question, Jeff Bagwell is the greatest player in Astros history. It would be really cool if he and Craig Biggio went in together, and Biggio's not eligible until next year. As for Bagwell, it's no coincidence that the Astros' greatest success came during his prime. It's a shame that Bagwell wasn't able to play in the team's first World Series in 2005, though. In terms of numbers, he's the Astros' all-time leader in home runs (449) and RBIs (1,529), as well as the 1991 NL Rookie of the Year and 1994 NL MVP.
6. Tim Raines, Outfielder (1979-2002 Expos, White Sox, Yankees, Athletics, Orioles, Marlins)-For the sake of the Montreal Expos franchise being more than just a historical footnote, I'd love to see Tim Raines eventually elected to the Hall of Fame. Tim Raines was the second-best base stealer and leadoff hitter of his era. Unfortunately, the best base stealer and leadoff hitter of his era was the greatest one of all-time, Rickey Henderson. If not for that (perhaps unfair) comparison to Rickey, Raines' candidacy would look much better standing alone. He went to seven straight All-Star Games in the '80s and is the Expos' career leader in runs, triples and stolen bases. Raines finished his career with 808 steals, fifth all-time.
7. Larry Walker, Outfielder (1989-2005 Expos, Rockies, Cardinals)-I understand the criticism of Larry Walker. His numbers were significantly better at Coors Field than they were anywhere else. But he was productive during his time in Montreal before he ever played for the Rockies, as well as at the end of his career in St. Louis. And he won seven Gold Gloves, which has nothing to do with the thin air of Denver. A three-time batting champion and five-time All-Star, Walker ended his career with 383 home runs and a .313 batting average. Then there was his 1997 MVP season, which was truly sensational. A .366 average with 49 homers, 130 RBIs, 33 stolen bases, 409 total bases, and 12 outfield assists.
8. Bernie Williams, Outfielder (1991-2006 Yankees)-The only first-timer who'll get enough votes to even be on the 2013 ballot, Bernie Williams was arguably the best position player during the Yankees dynasty in the late '90s. Probably because of that, he's the all-time leader in postseason games played, RBIs and extra base hits. He also hit 22 postseason home runs. He's also pretty high up there on the Yankees' all-time lists in a number of categories. Bernie's probably never going to have a plaque in Cooperstown. But he will eventually get a plaque in Monument Park, and No. 51 is going on the center field wall at Yankee Stadium. For a career Yankee who's not quite a Hall of Famer, that might be an even greater honor.
9. Lee Smith, Closer (1980-97 Cubs, Red Sox, Cardinals, Yankees, Orioles, Angels, Reds, Expos)-Until the two greatest relief pitchers ever (Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman) broke it, Lee Smith held the record for career saves. But he wasn't the great closer that Hall of Famers Bruce Sutter, Goose Gossage, Dennis Eckersley and Rollie Fingers were. That's why Smith has never gotten serious consideration. If he was so valuable, why did he bounce around to so many different teams? It's impressive that he compiled so many saves for so many bad teams, but his career record was below .500, and he was the first of the real "modern" closers that only pitched one inning. Regardless, Lee Smith's save total can't be ignored.
10. Don Mattingly, 1st Baseman (1982-95 Yankees)-Don Mattingly is never going to be elected to the Hall of Fame. I know this. But I'm allowed to reserve my last vote for a sentimental favorite. He was the best player on the Yankees at a time when they weren't very good. His career numbers (.307 average, 222 homers, 1,099 RBIs) probably would've been better if he wasn't limited by injuries late in his career, but he was one of the best players in the American League throughout the 1980s. And there's no question that he was the best defensive first baseman of his era in the AL. But like Bernie, his Yankee legacy with his number retired and a plaque in Monument Park is probably more than enough for Donnie Baseball.
As for 2013 and beyond, that's when things get "fun." I'm somewhat tempted to say that I'd vote for six newcomers on next year's ballot, but that's a discussion for next January.
With that being said, I wouldn't be surprised to see Santo be the only player inducted in July (it's a shame Santo won't be there to give an induction speech that certainly would've been memorable). However, I think the writers are probably somewhat hesitant to go without electing anybody. As a result, I think Barry Larkin will likely get the call. I always considered Larkin a very good player, but I never thought of him as a Hall of Famer. I'd love to see Jack Morris finally get the recognition he deserves as the best pitcher of the 1980s, but he's probably going to fall a bit short. If not for steroids, Mark McGwire would've been a first-ballot inductee. As it is, his vote total has remained consistently around 25 percent since he became eligible. That's not going to change. Ditto for Rafael Palmeiro, who, like Larkin and Fred McGriff, I never really thought of as a Hall of Famer. The class of new guys is so pathetic that it's not even worth mentioning their names. The only guy that's going to even get enough votes to stay on the ballot is Bernie Williams.
Hall of Fame voters are given 10 places on their ballot. If I were a voter, I like to think I'd exhaust all 10 votes (or as close to it as possible) every year. Here's the 10 that I would've voted for in 2012, in order of what I consider their Hall of Fame worthiness:
1. Jack Morris, Starting Pitcher (1977-94 Tigers, Twins, Blue Jays, Indians)-I don't understand why Jack Morris has never received more of a look from Hall of Fame voters, who are probably hung up on his 3.90 career ERA. But Morris was the definition of an ace. He started 14 consecutive Opening Days and Game 1 of the World Series three times (for three different teams). Morris won more games than any other pitcher in the 1980s and had 254 career wins. He was also a five-time All-Star and four-time World Champion. And let's not forget Game 7 in 1991.
2. Mark McGwire, 1st Baseman (1986-2001 Athletics, Cardinals)-Yes, I rank Mark McGwire second among this year's candidates. His steroid use has obviously tainted his numbers in a lot of people's minds, and that's probably not going to change. We're all entitled to our opinion about him, but I'm a member of the minority about the stars of the Steroid Era. I consider McGwire's numbers legitimate, and there's no way anybody can convince me that a 12-time All-Star with 583 career home runs (not to mention that memorable 1998 season) DOESN'T belong in Cooperstown.
3. Barry Larkin, Shortstop (1986-2004 Reds)-My distinction between "great" and "very good" starts at Larkin, which is why I put him third. Personally, I don't see him as a Hall of Famer. But he is the third-best guy on this year's ballot. A lot of the argument for Larkin is that he was one of the most underrated players in history. Seeing as he played shortstop in the National League at the same time as Ozzie Smith that might be true. A 12-time All-Star and the 1995 NL MVP, Larkin was very good for a long time. That's enough to warrant consideration, but wouldn't be enough to get him elected in any year other than this one.
4. Edgar Martinez, Designated Hitter (1987-2004 Mariners)-He's the greatest DH in history, and people will eventually need to come to terms with the fact that DH is a position. Sure, Paul Molitor's in, but he only became a DH late in his career. Edgar never really had another position. Regardless, he's the all-time leader among DHs in a number of important statistics. He hit .312 in his career and had a ridiculous 514 doubles (didn't it seem like he got a double every time up?). I don't know how long it'll take the voters to finally put a DH in the Hall of Fame, but when they do, it better be Edgar Martinez.
5. Jeff Bagwell, 1st Baseman (1991-2005 Astros)-Without question, Jeff Bagwell is the greatest player in Astros history. It would be really cool if he and Craig Biggio went in together, and Biggio's not eligible until next year. As for Bagwell, it's no coincidence that the Astros' greatest success came during his prime. It's a shame that Bagwell wasn't able to play in the team's first World Series in 2005, though. In terms of numbers, he's the Astros' all-time leader in home runs (449) and RBIs (1,529), as well as the 1991 NL Rookie of the Year and 1994 NL MVP.
6. Tim Raines, Outfielder (1979-2002 Expos, White Sox, Yankees, Athletics, Orioles, Marlins)-For the sake of the Montreal Expos franchise being more than just a historical footnote, I'd love to see Tim Raines eventually elected to the Hall of Fame. Tim Raines was the second-best base stealer and leadoff hitter of his era. Unfortunately, the best base stealer and leadoff hitter of his era was the greatest one of all-time, Rickey Henderson. If not for that (perhaps unfair) comparison to Rickey, Raines' candidacy would look much better standing alone. He went to seven straight All-Star Games in the '80s and is the Expos' career leader in runs, triples and stolen bases. Raines finished his career with 808 steals, fifth all-time.
7. Larry Walker, Outfielder (1989-2005 Expos, Rockies, Cardinals)-I understand the criticism of Larry Walker. His numbers were significantly better at Coors Field than they were anywhere else. But he was productive during his time in Montreal before he ever played for the Rockies, as well as at the end of his career in St. Louis. And he won seven Gold Gloves, which has nothing to do with the thin air of Denver. A three-time batting champion and five-time All-Star, Walker ended his career with 383 home runs and a .313 batting average. Then there was his 1997 MVP season, which was truly sensational. A .366 average with 49 homers, 130 RBIs, 33 stolen bases, 409 total bases, and 12 outfield assists.
8. Bernie Williams, Outfielder (1991-2006 Yankees)-The only first-timer who'll get enough votes to even be on the 2013 ballot, Bernie Williams was arguably the best position player during the Yankees dynasty in the late '90s. Probably because of that, he's the all-time leader in postseason games played, RBIs and extra base hits. He also hit 22 postseason home runs. He's also pretty high up there on the Yankees' all-time lists in a number of categories. Bernie's probably never going to have a plaque in Cooperstown. But he will eventually get a plaque in Monument Park, and No. 51 is going on the center field wall at Yankee Stadium. For a career Yankee who's not quite a Hall of Famer, that might be an even greater honor.
9. Lee Smith, Closer (1980-97 Cubs, Red Sox, Cardinals, Yankees, Orioles, Angels, Reds, Expos)-Until the two greatest relief pitchers ever (Mariano Rivera and Trevor Hoffman) broke it, Lee Smith held the record for career saves. But he wasn't the great closer that Hall of Famers Bruce Sutter, Goose Gossage, Dennis Eckersley and Rollie Fingers were. That's why Smith has never gotten serious consideration. If he was so valuable, why did he bounce around to so many different teams? It's impressive that he compiled so many saves for so many bad teams, but his career record was below .500, and he was the first of the real "modern" closers that only pitched one inning. Regardless, Lee Smith's save total can't be ignored.
10. Don Mattingly, 1st Baseman (1982-95 Yankees)-Don Mattingly is never going to be elected to the Hall of Fame. I know this. But I'm allowed to reserve my last vote for a sentimental favorite. He was the best player on the Yankees at a time when they weren't very good. His career numbers (.307 average, 222 homers, 1,099 RBIs) probably would've been better if he wasn't limited by injuries late in his career, but he was one of the best players in the American League throughout the 1980s. And there's no question that he was the best defensive first baseman of his era in the AL. But like Bernie, his Yankee legacy with his number retired and a plaque in Monument Park is probably more than enough for Donnie Baseball.
As for 2013 and beyond, that's when things get "fun." I'm somewhat tempted to say that I'd vote for six newcomers on next year's ballot, but that's a discussion for next January.
Saturday, January 7, 2012
NFL Picks: Wild Card Weekend
I'm just seeing the amazing news that the NHLPA has blocked the stupid four-conference alignment that the owners wanted for next season. But more on that next time. We've reached the first weekend in January, which can only mean one thing: playoff football! Despite losing last week, Cincinnati and Denver still managed to get the last two spots in the AFC, while Houston, which was locked into the No. 3 seed, decided to go for two to either win or lose the game and avoid an unnecessary overtime before what could've been a rematch with the Titans. Instead, both the Raiders and Tebows both lost, knocking Tennessee out and sending the Bengals to Houston.
Bengals (9-7) at Texans (10-6): Houston-I'm sure you all had this matchup when you made your preseason playoff predictions. Right? The Bengals are in the playoffs for the second time in three years and just the third time since 1990. The Texans, meanwhile, are making the first postseason appearance in franchise history. Not only is this the most unexpected matchup of Wild Card Weekend, it's also the hardest to handicap. It's not as if the Bengals and Texans were both on national television every week.
Here's what I know about the Cincinnati Bengals: Marvin Lewis is their coach, they've got a rookie quarterback named Andy Dalton, and they don't have that nut case Chad Johnson anymore. That's about it. I kind of saw a breakout season like this one coming in Houston, though. Arian Foster and Andre Johnson are complete studs, and that defense is legit. It was also impressive to see the Texans cycle through three different quarterbacks this year (four if you count Jake Delhomme) and not really miss a beat. The Texans won the regular season matchup between these two, and the crowd will certainly play to their favor. Houston does enter the playoffs on a three-game losing streak, but they straightened themselves out last week against the Titans. The Texans are the better team. The first playoff game in Houston since the 1993 season will end with the home team winning.
Lions (10-6) at Saints (13-3): New Orleans-Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time since 1999, the Detroit Lions are in the playoffs! And the Saints, who might be the best team in the NFL right now, have to play an extra game because they finished with a worse division record than San Francisco. That might matter next week, but right now it doesn't. The Saints are unbeatable at home, going 8-0 in the Superdome this season. We all saw what they did against Atlanta (a fellow playoff team) on Monday night two weeks ago. If the Lions had beaten the Packers in Lambeau last week, we would've had a Falcons-Saints rematch, but we'll have to settle for a Detroit-New Orleans Week 13 rematch instead.
This game will be different than the Week 13 matchup, when the Lions got thumped in their first Sunday night game in years. Ndamukong Suh was suspended for that game. As a result, the Saints won 31-17 in a game that wasn't even that close. The presence of Suh gives the Lions a better chance in this one, but I don't think it'll make enough of a difference. The Saints' offense on the Superdome turf looks like somebody really good at Madden being Drew Brees with their video game controller. Last year's embarrassing wild card loss to Seattle is fresh in their minds. The Saints aren't going to lose at home. The Lions' sensational season won't include their first playoff win in 20 years.
Falcons (10-6) at Giants (9-7): Giants-Last week, the Falcons certainly looked like a team that was in no hurry to go back to New Orleans so soon after getting thumped by the Saints. I also give the Giants a ton of credit for actually showing up against the Cowboys and playing like they wanted their season to last at least another week. As a result, we get the first playoff game in the history of MetLife Stadium.
While Cincinnati-Houston is the hardest game to handicap, this one is probably the hardest to pick. They're very evenly-matched teams. The Falcons, who made the playoffs in back-to-back years for the first time, have a tremendous quarterback in Matt Ryan, a superb running back in Michael Turner, a Hall of Fame tight end in Tony Gonzalez, big-play receiver Roddy White and future star Julio Jones. The defense, led by John Abraham, Kroy Biermann and Dunta Robinson, is just as good. The Giants, though, have their own version of Julio Jones in Victor Cruz, and evidently there's some sort of NFL rule that at least one Manning has to be remarkable while leading his team to numerous comeback wins en route to a division title. And don't forget about All-Pro defensive end Jason Pierre-Paul.
I love the way the Giants played down the stretch. I'm willing to overlook the four-game losing streak because of the teams they faced. But, the Redskins game aside, the Giants came to play in December, and they're going to be a dangerous playoff team. Ahmad Bradshaw said the Giants will have to be able to run the ball in order to win. He's right. They were able to do it against the Jets. They were able to do it against the Cowboys. They'll be able to do it against the Falcons.
Steelers (12-4) at Tebows (8-8): Pittsburgh-The final matchup of Wild Card Weekend is probably the most one-sided, at least on paper. The Steelers went all out last week trying to get the No. 2 seed, and ended up losing Rashard Mendenhall for the playoffs. Should they beat the Patriots next week (a distinct possibility), that could present some serious problems against Baltimore. But against Denver, not having Mendenhall and having a less-than-100 percent Ben Roethlisberger shouldn't make that much of a difference.
Somehow, despite losing three straight (and thanks to the overall mediocrity of the AFC West as a whole), the Tebows are in the playoffs for the first time in six years. It took a little while, but suddenly everybody figured out Tim Tebow. Make him stay in the pocket. He's not a good quarterback. Denver got thumped in Buffalo, then was held to a field goal by Kansas City. And let's face it, the Bills' and Chiefs' defenses don't exactly resemble the formidable bunch that represents the Steel City. As I've been saying all along, get a big enough lead and actually manage to run the ball in the first three and a half quarters, and you won't have to worry about him in the fourth. Denver's defense might keep it somewhat close, especially if Big Ben is limited, but Tebow's going to be too far behind to do his usual tricks. Against the Steelers' defense, it probably won't work anyway. Pittsburgh is the wild card team with the best chance of doing what the Packers did last year.
Last Week: 11-5
Regular Season: 167-89
Bengals (9-7) at Texans (10-6): Houston-I'm sure you all had this matchup when you made your preseason playoff predictions. Right? The Bengals are in the playoffs for the second time in three years and just the third time since 1990. The Texans, meanwhile, are making the first postseason appearance in franchise history. Not only is this the most unexpected matchup of Wild Card Weekend, it's also the hardest to handicap. It's not as if the Bengals and Texans were both on national television every week.
Here's what I know about the Cincinnati Bengals: Marvin Lewis is their coach, they've got a rookie quarterback named Andy Dalton, and they don't have that nut case Chad Johnson anymore. That's about it. I kind of saw a breakout season like this one coming in Houston, though. Arian Foster and Andre Johnson are complete studs, and that defense is legit. It was also impressive to see the Texans cycle through three different quarterbacks this year (four if you count Jake Delhomme) and not really miss a beat. The Texans won the regular season matchup between these two, and the crowd will certainly play to their favor. Houston does enter the playoffs on a three-game losing streak, but they straightened themselves out last week against the Titans. The Texans are the better team. The first playoff game in Houston since the 1993 season will end with the home team winning.
Lions (10-6) at Saints (13-3): New Orleans-Ladies and gentlemen, for the first time since 1999, the Detroit Lions are in the playoffs! And the Saints, who might be the best team in the NFL right now, have to play an extra game because they finished with a worse division record than San Francisco. That might matter next week, but right now it doesn't. The Saints are unbeatable at home, going 8-0 in the Superdome this season. We all saw what they did against Atlanta (a fellow playoff team) on Monday night two weeks ago. If the Lions had beaten the Packers in Lambeau last week, we would've had a Falcons-Saints rematch, but we'll have to settle for a Detroit-New Orleans Week 13 rematch instead.
This game will be different than the Week 13 matchup, when the Lions got thumped in their first Sunday night game in years. Ndamukong Suh was suspended for that game. As a result, the Saints won 31-17 in a game that wasn't even that close. The presence of Suh gives the Lions a better chance in this one, but I don't think it'll make enough of a difference. The Saints' offense on the Superdome turf looks like somebody really good at Madden being Drew Brees with their video game controller. Last year's embarrassing wild card loss to Seattle is fresh in their minds. The Saints aren't going to lose at home. The Lions' sensational season won't include their first playoff win in 20 years.
Falcons (10-6) at Giants (9-7): Giants-Last week, the Falcons certainly looked like a team that was in no hurry to go back to New Orleans so soon after getting thumped by the Saints. I also give the Giants a ton of credit for actually showing up against the Cowboys and playing like they wanted their season to last at least another week. As a result, we get the first playoff game in the history of MetLife Stadium.
While Cincinnati-Houston is the hardest game to handicap, this one is probably the hardest to pick. They're very evenly-matched teams. The Falcons, who made the playoffs in back-to-back years for the first time, have a tremendous quarterback in Matt Ryan, a superb running back in Michael Turner, a Hall of Fame tight end in Tony Gonzalez, big-play receiver Roddy White and future star Julio Jones. The defense, led by John Abraham, Kroy Biermann and Dunta Robinson, is just as good. The Giants, though, have their own version of Julio Jones in Victor Cruz, and evidently there's some sort of NFL rule that at least one Manning has to be remarkable while leading his team to numerous comeback wins en route to a division title. And don't forget about All-Pro defensive end Jason Pierre-Paul.
I love the way the Giants played down the stretch. I'm willing to overlook the four-game losing streak because of the teams they faced. But, the Redskins game aside, the Giants came to play in December, and they're going to be a dangerous playoff team. Ahmad Bradshaw said the Giants will have to be able to run the ball in order to win. He's right. They were able to do it against the Jets. They were able to do it against the Cowboys. They'll be able to do it against the Falcons.
Steelers (12-4) at Tebows (8-8): Pittsburgh-The final matchup of Wild Card Weekend is probably the most one-sided, at least on paper. The Steelers went all out last week trying to get the No. 2 seed, and ended up losing Rashard Mendenhall for the playoffs. Should they beat the Patriots next week (a distinct possibility), that could present some serious problems against Baltimore. But against Denver, not having Mendenhall and having a less-than-100 percent Ben Roethlisberger shouldn't make that much of a difference.
Somehow, despite losing three straight (and thanks to the overall mediocrity of the AFC West as a whole), the Tebows are in the playoffs for the first time in six years. It took a little while, but suddenly everybody figured out Tim Tebow. Make him stay in the pocket. He's not a good quarterback. Denver got thumped in Buffalo, then was held to a field goal by Kansas City. And let's face it, the Bills' and Chiefs' defenses don't exactly resemble the formidable bunch that represents the Steel City. As I've been saying all along, get a big enough lead and actually manage to run the ball in the first three and a half quarters, and you won't have to worry about him in the fourth. Denver's defense might keep it somewhat close, especially if Big Ben is limited, but Tebow's going to be too far behind to do his usual tricks. Against the Steelers' defense, it probably won't work anyway. Pittsburgh is the wild card team with the best chance of doing what the Packers did last year.
Last Week: 11-5
Regular Season: 167-89
Thursday, January 5, 2012
New Year's Resolutions
We're almost a week into 2012. I'm sure that by now a number of New Year's Resolutions have already been broken. I was smart enough to not even make any. But I was wondering: what kind of resolutions do sports stars make? I, of course, have no idea. Based on the events of 2011, I have some suggestions for New Year's Resolutions that should've been made by athletes and other sports figures.
For NASCAR's Busch brothers (Kurt and Kyle)...to not say and/or do stupid things that will get them fined (both), suspended (Kyle) or fired (Kurt)
For LeBron James, Vince Young, and anyone else who used the term "Dream Team" to refer to the professional club they play for...to avoid using the term "Dream Team" until said team has, you know, actually accomplished something
For the presidents and athletic directors at BCS schools that switch conferences...to give your actual reason for switching leagues (to help the football team make more money, the rest of the athletic department be damned) at the press conference instead of speaking in hypocritical cliches like "we were looking for a league with more stability"
For the directors of bowl games and other college football decision makers...to get a clue and realize that the only way to crown a "champion" that people aren't going to dispute is to have a playoff
For ESPN...to realize that there are more sports out there than college football and the NBA
For Rex Ryan...to shut up unless you're willing to take it when your trash talk is thrown right back in your face or bites you in the ass
For Tim Tebow...to become an actual NFL quarterback and stop crediting God for everything you do (you're religious, we get it!)
For fans of the Boston Red Sox...to come to grips with the fact that only people in New England love your team. Pretty much everyone else outside New York hates the Yankees and Red Sox equally.
For the Red Sox' starting rotation...not to eat fried chicken in the clubhouse during games
For Mark Sanchez...to be a little more discreet when enjoying the company of beautiful young women
For Serena Williams...to play tennis, like it or not, and save the tantrums for times other than significant points in Grand Slam matches
For FIFA...to hold one press conference (just one) where it at least looks like what's being announced isn't the result of blatant corruption, even though it obviously will be
For all players and coaches involved with the NHL...to see how many different ways the various English curse words can be used, and to use at least one in every sentence
For the NCAA...to actually be consistent on the penalties that are given out to programs instead of being more lenient on the ones you like better (There's no way you can tell me that what USC did is worse than what Ohio State did. Ohio State deserved at least the same punishment, if not a worse one.)
For Tim Lincecum, Shaun White and many others...to get a haircut (Troy Polamalu's hair is awesome, so he can keep his)
For Brian Wilson...to shave and act like a normal person
For Chad Johnson and Ron Artest...to accept the fact that the names you've given yourselves are stupid and people are still going to refer to you by your given names anyway, so you might as well switch them back
And finally, for all U.S. Olympians...to go to London and come back with a ton of medals that were won cleanly and won't be taken away five years from now when it's revealed you were on performance-enhancing drugs (if you're not going to London clean, we don't want you on the Olympic team at all)
I know that some of this is probably wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be nice if at least some of it came true?
For NASCAR's Busch brothers (Kurt and Kyle)...to not say and/or do stupid things that will get them fined (both), suspended (Kyle) or fired (Kurt)
For LeBron James, Vince Young, and anyone else who used the term "Dream Team" to refer to the professional club they play for...to avoid using the term "Dream Team" until said team has, you know, actually accomplished something
For the presidents and athletic directors at BCS schools that switch conferences...to give your actual reason for switching leagues (to help the football team make more money, the rest of the athletic department be damned) at the press conference instead of speaking in hypocritical cliches like "we were looking for a league with more stability"
For the directors of bowl games and other college football decision makers...to get a clue and realize that the only way to crown a "champion" that people aren't going to dispute is to have a playoff
For ESPN...to realize that there are more sports out there than college football and the NBA
For Rex Ryan...to shut up unless you're willing to take it when your trash talk is thrown right back in your face or bites you in the ass
For Tim Tebow...to become an actual NFL quarterback and stop crediting God for everything you do (you're religious, we get it!)
For fans of the Boston Red Sox...to come to grips with the fact that only people in New England love your team. Pretty much everyone else outside New York hates the Yankees and Red Sox equally.
For the Red Sox' starting rotation...not to eat fried chicken in the clubhouse during games
For Mark Sanchez...to be a little more discreet when enjoying the company of beautiful young women
For Serena Williams...to play tennis, like it or not, and save the tantrums for times other than significant points in Grand Slam matches
For FIFA...to hold one press conference (just one) where it at least looks like what's being announced isn't the result of blatant corruption, even though it obviously will be
For all players and coaches involved with the NHL...to see how many different ways the various English curse words can be used, and to use at least one in every sentence
For the NCAA...to actually be consistent on the penalties that are given out to programs instead of being more lenient on the ones you like better (There's no way you can tell me that what USC did is worse than what Ohio State did. Ohio State deserved at least the same punishment, if not a worse one.)
For Tim Lincecum, Shaun White and many others...to get a haircut (Troy Polamalu's hair is awesome, so he can keep his)
For Brian Wilson...to shave and act like a normal person
For Chad Johnson and Ron Artest...to accept the fact that the names you've given yourselves are stupid and people are still going to refer to you by your given names anyway, so you might as well switch them back
And finally, for all U.S. Olympians...to go to London and come back with a ton of medals that were won cleanly and won't be taken away five years from now when it's revealed you were on performance-enhancing drugs (if you're not going to London clean, we don't want you on the Olympic team at all)
I know that some of this is probably wishful thinking, but wouldn't it be nice if at least some of it came true?
Tuesday, January 3, 2012
12 Predictions for 2012
What lies ahead for the world of sports in 2012? Well, the London Olympics immediately jump to the forefront. But there's obviously going to be a ton of stuff that happens in the next 12 months. Here are 12 sports predictions for 2012. Some are things I actually think are possible, while others would just be really cool if they did:
- Once again, Andy Murray won't win Wimbledon. But a month later, he'll win Olympic gold for Great Britain on Centre Court.
- After a major star is deprived the chance to run for Olympic gold in London because of track & field's ridiculous false start rule (one false start and you're disqualified), the IAAF will announce after the Olympics that it's going back to the old rule (the first false start is charged to the field, then you're disqualifed after the next one) in 2013.
- For once, we'll actually go an entire calendar year without any BCS schools deciding to leave their current conference. And the Big East signs a significant multi-year TV contract with CBS and ESPN that finally brings some stability to that whole situation.
- Unlike the Phillies and their "Dream Team" pitching staff, who famously flamed out in 2011, Albert and C.J. Wilson will lead the Angels to a World Series title.
- Even though golf isn't a sport, I think Tiger Woods will win a major (let's say the British Open). And he'll be part of the winning American Ryder Cup team.
- The Colts won't need to worry about the Manning vs. Luck decision, because the Vikings are going to make them an offer they can't refuse for the No. 1 pick. Then, with the franchise quarterback and Jared Allen, Minnesota contends for a playoff spot before coming up just short. (In reality, they'll keep the pick, draft Luck, and he'll serve as Peyton's backup.)
- The Phoenix Coyotes are sold and move to Quebec City. As a result, they're moved to the Adams Conference, the NHL realizes that its four "conferences" are actually divisions, and they decide that the league should be divided East/West.
- Even with the stupid second wild card team, the Red Sux will still miss the playoffs. The inaugural AL wild card game will be between the Rays and Rangers, while the Yankees, Tigers and Angels win the divisions. In the National League, with the Marlins and Nationals actually attempting to be good now, the Mets will finish last in the NL East. As for the Marlins, they'll just miss the playoffs in their first season in the new stadium.
- Roger Federer will end his Grand Slam drought and win Wimbledon. On the women's side, Caroline Wozniacki finally realizes her potential and proves her No. 1 ranking isn't a fluke by capturing her first Grand Slam title at the Australian Open.
- With David Beckham deciding to return, the L.A. Galaxy win the MLS Cup for the second year in a row, and, with the extensive marketing of MLS on the NBC Sports Network, soccer finally completes its foray into the mainstream.
- Jessica Simpson calls off her engagement to Eric Johnson and gets back together with Tony Romo. The newly "inspired" Romo leads the Cowboys to a 12-4 record and the NFC East title. In other athlete/celebrity couple news, Khloe Kardashian hates Houston and divorces Lamar Odom, Mark Sanchez settles down with one of those nice girls who came to visit him at his apartment last month, and Carrie Underwood and Mike Fisher announce that they're having a baby.
- Floyd Mayweather, Jr., finally agrees to fight Manny Pacquiao. The most-hyped boxing match in years features HBO "24/7" cameras, a record number of pay-per-view buys and a sold out MGM Grand. The fight itself is a complete dud, as Pacquiao completely dominates Mayweather.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)