- The winner will be the only team that's undefeated in more than one Super Bowl. (It's also the first Super Bowl matchup between undefeated Super Bowl teams.) The Ravens beat the Giants in their only previous Super Bowl appearance, XXXV, while the 49ers are an incredible 5-0 all-time in the Super Bowl (XVI, XIX, XXIII, XXIV, XXIX). And the MVP of Super Bowl XXXV? Ray Lewis.
- Both the 49ers and Ravens lost their Conference Championship Game last season. The last time both Super Bowl participants lost the AFC and NFC title games the year before was Super Bowl XXX, when the Cowboys met the Steelers a year after losing to the 49ers and Chargers, respectively. Like that Cowboys team, the Ravens beat the same team that beat them the year before.
- This is, of course, Ray Lewis's final game before retirement. Should the Ravens win, he'll join Jerome Bettis and Michael Strahan as a future Hall of Famer riding off into the sunset as a Super Bowl champion. The crazy coincidence is that Bettis and Strahan are both finalists for the Hall of Fame this year, and the new Hall of Famers will be announced the day before the Super Bowl.
- Colin Kaepernick is the first quarterback who started the year as a backup to end up starting the Super Bowl since Jake Delhomme for the Panthers in Super Bowl XXXVIII. Should the 49ers win, he'll be the first to go from backup to winning Super Bowl starter since the Giants' Jeff Hostetler in Super Bowl XXV.
- Kaepernick and Joe Flacco will both be making their first career Super Bowl start on Sunday. The last time neither starting quarterback came into the game with previous Super Bowl experience was Super Bowl XLI, when it was the Colts' Peyton Manning against the Bears' Rex Grossman.
- Speaking of Kaepernick and Flacco, neither one attended a BCS school. Kaepernick played at Nevada and Flacco went to Delaware. The last time neither starting quarterback came from the non-BCS ranks was the Steelers' Ben Roethlisberger (Miami, Ohio) and the Cardinals' Kurt Warner (Northern Iowa) in Super Bowl XLIII.
- Keeping with the quarterback theme, 49ers coach Jim Harbaugh lost the 1996 AFC Championship Game as quarterback of the Colts. The last man who played in the NFL and later coached in the Super Bowl was Sean Payton, who was a replacement player on the 1987 Bears before leading the Sinners to a Super Bowl title three years ago. The head coach of the Colts team that lost to New Orleans in Super Bowl XLIV was Jim Caldwell, who's now the Ravens' offensive coordinator.
- Starting with that victory by New Orleans, the NFC has won three straight Super Bowls, its longest winning streak since the 13-year string started by the 1984 49ers.
- An NFC Super Bowl win has preceded a National League win in the MLB All-Star Game in each of the last three years, and each of those baseball seasons was capped by the NL champion winning the World Series. In 2009, the AFC (Steelers) won the Super Bowl, the AL won the All-Star Game, and the AL (Yankees) won the World Series. The Super Bowl-World Series trend goes all the way back to 2007 with the Colts and the Red Sox. So does the All-Star Game thing, with the exception of 2008, when the AL won the All-Star Game, but the Giants won the Super Bowl and the Phillies won the World Series.
- San Francisco just won a championship five months ago with the Giants' World Series title. If the 49ers win, San Francisco will become the first city to win the World Series and Super Bowl back-to-back since 2004-05, when the Red Sox won the World Series and the Patriots won the Super Bowl. The last city to have two teams in the World Series and Super Bowl in the same season was also Boston. The Red Sox won the 2007 World Series, but the Patriots lost Super Bowl XLII to the Giants. The last time a city won consecutive titles in any two sports was Pittsburgh in 2009, when the Steelers won the Super Bowl, then the Penguins won the Stanley Cup a couple months later.
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Super Bowl XLVII Fun Facts
This post has become an annual one. With just a few days remaining before the Super Bowl and all the pregame hype coming close to that annoying level, I like to look for the random stuff that you may or may not hear during the two weeks between the Conference Championships and the Super Bowl itself. So, here's the 2013 edition of Super Bowl Fun Facts. Hope you enjoy...
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
He Shouldn't Have Said It, But He's Right
Today was Super Bowl Media Day, but that didn't stop Ravens quarterback Joe Flacco from making headlines with something he said yesterday. When asked about next year's Super Bowl in New York, Flacco said the idea was "stupid." That, of course, didn't go over well with the NFL suits and Flacco was pretty much forced to apologize. Problem is, though, he's right.
You would think that I'd be excited about the Super Bowl coming to my hometown. But I'm not. I haven't been on board with the New York Super Bowl from the start. It's a bad idea. And there are plenty of reasons why.
For starters, let's consider the most obvious potential problem: it's outdoors in New York in February. While it's by no means a guarantee, bad weather is almost a certainty. Last week was bitter cold throughout the Northeast. Then it snowed. Today was comfortable, but by January-in-the-Northeast standards. Sitting outside in 40-degree weather might be fun when it's a Giants game, but it's something completely different when you have fans coming in from out of town, none of whom are used to it, out there for four hours after dark. The chances of them being incredibly miserable are extremely high. And that's not even mentioning the corporate sponsors and other NFL bigwigs who'll be subjected to the same miserable conditions. They won't be comfortable for anybody. Is that really the type of environment you want the biggest event in American sports to be held in?
The NFL's argument is that a) they have a contingency and b) they've held the Super Bowl in cold-weather cities before. Do they really have a contingency for snow or freezing rain or any other type of winter-weather-related situation? Look at this year's Pinstripe Bowl, which was played in a snowstorm. Sure, it looked cool on TV, but can you say anything else that was good about that situation? And, yes, the Super Bowl has been played in cold-weather cities before. IN DOMES! Fans didn't have to sit there in the elements for hours, and there wasn't any chance of the weather having an impact on the field conditions, etc.
Even when the Super Bowl has been played in places where the February weather traditionally isn't that bad has created havoc. Remember the ice storm in Dallas two years ago? Even Atlanta, where you think you're safe, had a winter storm prior to the Rams-Titans Super Bowl in 2000. The Super Bowl hasn't been in Atlanta since. Of course, the Super Bowl was given to New York on the understanding that it was going to be a one-off thing, but that doesn't change the fact the weather is the most serious potential problem the NFL's going to face.
My other big problem with the New York Super Bowl is the inherent unfairness that exists with a number of the potential matchups. This year's participants actually provide a good example of what I'm talking about. While not as bad as New York, Baltimore is still, for the most part, a cold-weather city. San Francisco is not. The Ravens regularly play games outdoors in cold weather. The 49ers don't. So, if this year's game was in New York instead of New Orleans, the Ravens would have an inherent advantage. The whole idea of playing the Super Bowl at a neutral site is so that neither team has an advantage.
Or let's take it the other way. Imagine it's the Falcons vs. the Dolphins. Atlanta doesn't just play in the South, they also play in a dome. Miami's a frequent Super Bowl destination for obvious reasons. The Dolphins and Falcons both aren't used to playing in the type of conditions they'd face in New York. As a result, the quality of the game, which is supposed to be a display of football's two best teams, would be severely compromised.
To be clear, I have no problem with warm-weather teams visiting cold-weather cities in the Conference Championship Games. You play all season for home field advantage precisely because it's an advantage. If you go 14-2 and you're playing a 9-7 team for the right to go to the Super Bowl, you deserve to be at home in whatever kind of elements with your fans there. But the Super Bowl, the one-off championship game, is different. It's played at a neutral site for a reason. Taking the weather out of the equation and making it a fair playing field for both teams, regardless of where they come from.
I could be dead wrong. The Super Bowl in New York could end up being wonderful. Or it could be the tremendous disaster I'm predicting. But the NFL gave the Super Bowl to New York to reward the Giants and Jets for building the new stadium, as well as the league's appreciation for the Mara family's contributions to the sport. I'm sure it'll be a good show. This city sure knows how to throw a party! And the non-game events will certainly be spectacular. But it's a definite risk. And I'm not sure it's one worth taking.
You would think that I'd be excited about the Super Bowl coming to my hometown. But I'm not. I haven't been on board with the New York Super Bowl from the start. It's a bad idea. And there are plenty of reasons why.
For starters, let's consider the most obvious potential problem: it's outdoors in New York in February. While it's by no means a guarantee, bad weather is almost a certainty. Last week was bitter cold throughout the Northeast. Then it snowed. Today was comfortable, but by January-in-the-Northeast standards. Sitting outside in 40-degree weather might be fun when it's a Giants game, but it's something completely different when you have fans coming in from out of town, none of whom are used to it, out there for four hours after dark. The chances of them being incredibly miserable are extremely high. And that's not even mentioning the corporate sponsors and other NFL bigwigs who'll be subjected to the same miserable conditions. They won't be comfortable for anybody. Is that really the type of environment you want the biggest event in American sports to be held in?
The NFL's argument is that a) they have a contingency and b) they've held the Super Bowl in cold-weather cities before. Do they really have a contingency for snow or freezing rain or any other type of winter-weather-related situation? Look at this year's Pinstripe Bowl, which was played in a snowstorm. Sure, it looked cool on TV, but can you say anything else that was good about that situation? And, yes, the Super Bowl has been played in cold-weather cities before. IN DOMES! Fans didn't have to sit there in the elements for hours, and there wasn't any chance of the weather having an impact on the field conditions, etc.
Even when the Super Bowl has been played in places where the February weather traditionally isn't that bad has created havoc. Remember the ice storm in Dallas two years ago? Even Atlanta, where you think you're safe, had a winter storm prior to the Rams-Titans Super Bowl in 2000. The Super Bowl hasn't been in Atlanta since. Of course, the Super Bowl was given to New York on the understanding that it was going to be a one-off thing, but that doesn't change the fact the weather is the most serious potential problem the NFL's going to face.
My other big problem with the New York Super Bowl is the inherent unfairness that exists with a number of the potential matchups. This year's participants actually provide a good example of what I'm talking about. While not as bad as New York, Baltimore is still, for the most part, a cold-weather city. San Francisco is not. The Ravens regularly play games outdoors in cold weather. The 49ers don't. So, if this year's game was in New York instead of New Orleans, the Ravens would have an inherent advantage. The whole idea of playing the Super Bowl at a neutral site is so that neither team has an advantage.
Or let's take it the other way. Imagine it's the Falcons vs. the Dolphins. Atlanta doesn't just play in the South, they also play in a dome. Miami's a frequent Super Bowl destination for obvious reasons. The Dolphins and Falcons both aren't used to playing in the type of conditions they'd face in New York. As a result, the quality of the game, which is supposed to be a display of football's two best teams, would be severely compromised.
To be clear, I have no problem with warm-weather teams visiting cold-weather cities in the Conference Championship Games. You play all season for home field advantage precisely because it's an advantage. If you go 14-2 and you're playing a 9-7 team for the right to go to the Super Bowl, you deserve to be at home in whatever kind of elements with your fans there. But the Super Bowl, the one-off championship game, is different. It's played at a neutral site for a reason. Taking the weather out of the equation and making it a fair playing field for both teams, regardless of where they come from.
I could be dead wrong. The Super Bowl in New York could end up being wonderful. Or it could be the tremendous disaster I'm predicting. But the NFL gave the Super Bowl to New York to reward the Giants and Jets for building the new stadium, as well as the league's appreciation for the Mara family's contributions to the sport. I'm sure it'll be a good show. This city sure knows how to throw a party! And the non-game events will certainly be spectacular. But it's a definite risk. And I'm not sure it's one worth taking.
Sunday, January 27, 2013
America's Best Sports City
I don't think there's any question what city is the King of American Sports right now. The Giants are three months removed from their second World Series title in three seasons, and San Francisco has a chance to make it back-to-back championships with a 49ers victory next Sunday. That's a lot of sick/vacation days that fans in the Bay Area need to use up solely for going to championship parades and a lot of money spent on the ridiculously overpriced t-shirts/hats/DVDs that they simply have to have.
Contrast that to Phoenix, which has a grand total of ONE title on its city resume (the 2001 Diamondbacks). Or Detroit, where the Tigers and Red Wings don't even come close to making up for the Lions and Pistons.
So, how do the cities stack up? There are 12 cities in the country that have at least one team in each of the Big Four (for San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose count; same thing for New York and New Jersey). Some have an abundance of riches. Others not so much. It's pretty obvious that San Francisco's No. 1. But what about the rest? These rankings are based on a couple factors, including overall success of the group as a whole, championships won and general relevance in each particular sport. So, without further ado, here are the top-to-bottom rankings of the 12 four-sport cities in America:
1. San Francisco-The Giants have won two of the last three World Series. The 49ers are in the Super Bowl. The A's won their division last season. The Sharks are perennial contenders, and you've gotta figure they'll break through and get to the Stanley Cup Finals eventually. The Warriors? They've been a laughingstock for a long time, but even they're on the upswing. Then there's that dysfunctional mess known as the Raiders, who are currently the only ones holding the Bay Area back.
2. New York-It may seem like I'm being a homer here, but consider the recent success of New York teams. The Giants won the Super Bowl last season. The Yankees are in the playoffs every year, and even that's not enough, which says all you need to know. The Rangers should've won the Stanley Cup last year, but lost the Eastern Conference Finals to the Devils. Over in the NBA, the Knicks, who've been irrelevant for years, have turned a corner and are one of the best teams in the East, and moving to Brooklyn has suddenly made the Nets relevant. Nobody cares about the Mets or Islanders, which is fine with them. As for the Jets, they do their part by providing everyone with some comic relief.
3. Boston-A few years ago, Boston was the undisputed King. But they've been knocked down a few pegs in recent years. Sure, the Bruins were the Stanley Cup champions in 2011 and still rank among the five or six best teams in the NHL. And the Celtics made the conference finals last year. And the Patriots have won approximately 65 consecutive AFC East titles. But they've lost two Super Bowls to the Giants in the last five years, which means Boston can't rank above New York. Especially after the 2012 Red Sox season (which I, personally, enjoyed very much).
4. Washington-Washington gets the slight nod over Chicago for No. 4 because there were a pair of division champions in D.C. in recently completed seasons. The Nationals are a team on the rise. They're young, they're good, and they're going to be around for a while. Same with RG3 and the Redskins. Talk about talented, how about Alex Ovechkin and the Capitals? They might be one of the most overrated teams in hockey, but they're a perennial playoff team. Even the Wizards are less of a joke than they've been recently.
5. Philadelphia-If I'd done this list last year, Philly probably would've been in the Top Four, if not the Top Three. But that was before the Phillies and Eagles each had a completely miserable 2012 campaign. The 76ers? I have no idea how good they are, but they're in the same division as the Knicks, Nets and Celtics, who are all better. The last Philadelphia team to reach the Finals was the 2010 Flyers. They're probably the best of the lot right now.
6. Chicago-Chi-Town didn't get the 2016 Olympics and hasn't won a title since the 2010 Blackhawks, but neither one of those things is really the city's fault. It's not really possible for the Bulls to match their six-championships-in-eight-years Jordan heyday, but they're back to being one of the best teams in the NBA under Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah. And it's not as if the Blackhawks have slacked since their Cup win. As for the Bears, they just fired Lovie Smith after a 10-6 season. They haven't been regularly making the playoffs, but they have been contending. Chicago's always going to love the Cubs more, but the White Sox are the better of the two baseball teams by far. They led the AL Central for most of the 2012 season before the Tigers caught them in September.
7. Dallas-It's a Cowboys town, but the Rangers and Mavericks are the current standard-bearers for sports in Big D. The Rangers made back-to-back World Series appearances in 2010-11, but pissed away a third straight division title last season and ended up losing to the Orioles in the wild card game. Mark Cuban is one of the best owners in sports. The Mavericks are going to be good as long as he continues to care, and they won the title two years ago. Under the weight of the ridiculous expectations they face every year, the Cowboys have underachieved. But they're always in the hunt until the final game, even though they usually end up short of the playoffs. I'm curious to see if the roster overhaul the Stars have made this season lifts them out of last place.
8. Denver-Peyton Manning's arrival turned the Broncos into the Toast of the Town (which they always were anyway) and moved Denver up a little bit in the rankings. But outside of the Broncos, Denver's a little lacking. The Nuggets are good. The Rockies have a lot of talent, but not enough for their tough division. Same thing with the Avalanche. Some talent. Not enough. Although, their 2001 Stanley Cup remains Denver's last championship.
9. Detroit-Detroit has the Tigers and Red Wings. But, unfortunately, Detroit also has the Lions and Pistons. We might as well get used to the Tigers playing in the World Series. Because I don't think last season will be an isolated instance of that happening. The Red Wings are always in the discussion, even if they're not as good as they used to be. They have the longest active streak of consecutive playoff appearances at 20-something years. After a couple years of promise and a playoff run in 2011, the Lions regressed back to last place this season. And the Pistons are currently a mess.
10. Miami-Let's face it, Miami has the Heat and nothing else. LeBron and Co. won their championship last season, but that doesn't come anywhere close to making up for how horrendous the Panthers, Dolphins and Marlins have been. In all fairness, the Panthers won the division last season, but the verdict's still out as to whether that was a fluke or not. Regardless, they've been so bad for so long that even if last year wasn't an anamoly, it doesn't help much. Same thing with the Dolphins. Being in the same division as the Patriots shouldn't be an excuse. They haven't been consistently good since Marino. The Marlins? Yeah. That rebranding thing went well. Last season was the first time they tried to be good and it didn't work, and now they've completely given up. That's why all of their best players now play in Toronto.
11. Minnesota-If the WNBA was factored into these city rankings, Maya Moore's Lynx would help Minnesota's cause. As it is, though, there hasn't been much to cheer about in the Twin Cities recently. Sure, Adrian Peterson's a beast and the Vikings made the playoffs, but they sucked last season. The Wild will probably be a lot better this season and will probably contend for the Northeast Division title, but they've struggled in recent years. Same thing with the Timberwolves. The Twins have gone the other way. They've got one of the most talented players in baseball (Joe Mauer), yet have gone from challenging for the division title year after year to fighing to stay out of last place.
12. Phoenix-The collective lack of success for the four Phoenix teams over the past few years was enough to put our friends in the desert over the top as the proud owners of the title "Worst Four-Spor City." Phoenix's only title came from the 2001 Diamondbacks. Said baseball team throws in a random winning season every couple of years, but, for the most part, hangs out in fourth- or fifth-place. The Cardinals? Outside of Kurt Warner's time there, which included one Super Bowl near-win, they haven't been relevant since moving West. The Coyotes are owned by the NHL and have been rumored to be on the move for a couple years. Despite all this, they made a run to the Western Conference Finals last season. Again, probably a flash-in-the-pan, though. Phoenix's standard-bearer has always been the Suns, but even they've struggled recently, and their best player--Steve Nash--is on the Lakers now.
So, there you have it. San Francisco's supremacy will be further cemented if the Sharks win the Stanley Cup. As for everybody else, it gives them something to strive for. Just like Boston was King in the early 2000s, San Fran's not going to be top dog forever. Who's the biggest contender to steal the title away? I wouldn't be surprised if it's Washington.
Contrast that to Phoenix, which has a grand total of ONE title on its city resume (the 2001 Diamondbacks). Or Detroit, where the Tigers and Red Wings don't even come close to making up for the Lions and Pistons.
So, how do the cities stack up? There are 12 cities in the country that have at least one team in each of the Big Four (for San Francisco, Oakland and San Jose count; same thing for New York and New Jersey). Some have an abundance of riches. Others not so much. It's pretty obvious that San Francisco's No. 1. But what about the rest? These rankings are based on a couple factors, including overall success of the group as a whole, championships won and general relevance in each particular sport. So, without further ado, here are the top-to-bottom rankings of the 12 four-sport cities in America:
1. San Francisco-The Giants have won two of the last three World Series. The 49ers are in the Super Bowl. The A's won their division last season. The Sharks are perennial contenders, and you've gotta figure they'll break through and get to the Stanley Cup Finals eventually. The Warriors? They've been a laughingstock for a long time, but even they're on the upswing. Then there's that dysfunctional mess known as the Raiders, who are currently the only ones holding the Bay Area back.
2. New York-It may seem like I'm being a homer here, but consider the recent success of New York teams. The Giants won the Super Bowl last season. The Yankees are in the playoffs every year, and even that's not enough, which says all you need to know. The Rangers should've won the Stanley Cup last year, but lost the Eastern Conference Finals to the Devils. Over in the NBA, the Knicks, who've been irrelevant for years, have turned a corner and are one of the best teams in the East, and moving to Brooklyn has suddenly made the Nets relevant. Nobody cares about the Mets or Islanders, which is fine with them. As for the Jets, they do their part by providing everyone with some comic relief.
3. Boston-A few years ago, Boston was the undisputed King. But they've been knocked down a few pegs in recent years. Sure, the Bruins were the Stanley Cup champions in 2011 and still rank among the five or six best teams in the NHL. And the Celtics made the conference finals last year. And the Patriots have won approximately 65 consecutive AFC East titles. But they've lost two Super Bowls to the Giants in the last five years, which means Boston can't rank above New York. Especially after the 2012 Red Sox season (which I, personally, enjoyed very much).
4. Washington-Washington gets the slight nod over Chicago for No. 4 because there were a pair of division champions in D.C. in recently completed seasons. The Nationals are a team on the rise. They're young, they're good, and they're going to be around for a while. Same with RG3 and the Redskins. Talk about talented, how about Alex Ovechkin and the Capitals? They might be one of the most overrated teams in hockey, but they're a perennial playoff team. Even the Wizards are less of a joke than they've been recently.
5. Philadelphia-If I'd done this list last year, Philly probably would've been in the Top Four, if not the Top Three. But that was before the Phillies and Eagles each had a completely miserable 2012 campaign. The 76ers? I have no idea how good they are, but they're in the same division as the Knicks, Nets and Celtics, who are all better. The last Philadelphia team to reach the Finals was the 2010 Flyers. They're probably the best of the lot right now.
6. Chicago-Chi-Town didn't get the 2016 Olympics and hasn't won a title since the 2010 Blackhawks, but neither one of those things is really the city's fault. It's not really possible for the Bulls to match their six-championships-in-eight-years Jordan heyday, but they're back to being one of the best teams in the NBA under Derrick Rose and Joakim Noah. And it's not as if the Blackhawks have slacked since their Cup win. As for the Bears, they just fired Lovie Smith after a 10-6 season. They haven't been regularly making the playoffs, but they have been contending. Chicago's always going to love the Cubs more, but the White Sox are the better of the two baseball teams by far. They led the AL Central for most of the 2012 season before the Tigers caught them in September.
7. Dallas-It's a Cowboys town, but the Rangers and Mavericks are the current standard-bearers for sports in Big D. The Rangers made back-to-back World Series appearances in 2010-11, but pissed away a third straight division title last season and ended up losing to the Orioles in the wild card game. Mark Cuban is one of the best owners in sports. The Mavericks are going to be good as long as he continues to care, and they won the title two years ago. Under the weight of the ridiculous expectations they face every year, the Cowboys have underachieved. But they're always in the hunt until the final game, even though they usually end up short of the playoffs. I'm curious to see if the roster overhaul the Stars have made this season lifts them out of last place.
8. Denver-Peyton Manning's arrival turned the Broncos into the Toast of the Town (which they always were anyway) and moved Denver up a little bit in the rankings. But outside of the Broncos, Denver's a little lacking. The Nuggets are good. The Rockies have a lot of talent, but not enough for their tough division. Same thing with the Avalanche. Some talent. Not enough. Although, their 2001 Stanley Cup remains Denver's last championship.
9. Detroit-Detroit has the Tigers and Red Wings. But, unfortunately, Detroit also has the Lions and Pistons. We might as well get used to the Tigers playing in the World Series. Because I don't think last season will be an isolated instance of that happening. The Red Wings are always in the discussion, even if they're not as good as they used to be. They have the longest active streak of consecutive playoff appearances at 20-something years. After a couple years of promise and a playoff run in 2011, the Lions regressed back to last place this season. And the Pistons are currently a mess.
10. Miami-Let's face it, Miami has the Heat and nothing else. LeBron and Co. won their championship last season, but that doesn't come anywhere close to making up for how horrendous the Panthers, Dolphins and Marlins have been. In all fairness, the Panthers won the division last season, but the verdict's still out as to whether that was a fluke or not. Regardless, they've been so bad for so long that even if last year wasn't an anamoly, it doesn't help much. Same thing with the Dolphins. Being in the same division as the Patriots shouldn't be an excuse. They haven't been consistently good since Marino. The Marlins? Yeah. That rebranding thing went well. Last season was the first time they tried to be good and it didn't work, and now they've completely given up. That's why all of their best players now play in Toronto.
11. Minnesota-If the WNBA was factored into these city rankings, Maya Moore's Lynx would help Minnesota's cause. As it is, though, there hasn't been much to cheer about in the Twin Cities recently. Sure, Adrian Peterson's a beast and the Vikings made the playoffs, but they sucked last season. The Wild will probably be a lot better this season and will probably contend for the Northeast Division title, but they've struggled in recent years. Same thing with the Timberwolves. The Twins have gone the other way. They've got one of the most talented players in baseball (Joe Mauer), yet have gone from challenging for the division title year after year to fighing to stay out of last place.
12. Phoenix-The collective lack of success for the four Phoenix teams over the past few years was enough to put our friends in the desert over the top as the proud owners of the title "Worst Four-Spor City." Phoenix's only title came from the 2001 Diamondbacks. Said baseball team throws in a random winning season every couple of years, but, for the most part, hangs out in fourth- or fifth-place. The Cardinals? Outside of Kurt Warner's time there, which included one Super Bowl near-win, they haven't been relevant since moving West. The Coyotes are owned by the NHL and have been rumored to be on the move for a couple years. Despite all this, they made a run to the Western Conference Finals last season. Again, probably a flash-in-the-pan, though. Phoenix's standard-bearer has always been the Suns, but even they've struggled recently, and their best player--Steve Nash--is on the Lakers now.
So, there you have it. San Francisco's supremacy will be further cemented if the Sharks win the Stanley Cup. As for everybody else, it gives them something to strive for. Just like Boston was King in the early 2000s, San Fran's not going to be top dog forever. Who's the biggest contender to steal the title away? I wouldn't be surprised if it's Washington.
Friday, January 25, 2013
It's Not the Worst, and At Least It Makes Sense
It's official. Come next season, the New Orleans Hornets will be known as the New Orleans Pelicans, and they'll change their colors from teal and gold to navy and red. The name and color scheme both sounded extremely stupid when owner Tom Benson proposed them a couple months ago. They still do. But the logo is at least pretty solid...
And while the "Pelicans" name might be stupid, it at least makes sense. The pelican is Louisiana's state bird. Of course, the original New Orleans basketball team was the "Jazz," which is perfect for a team from that city. But they took the name with them to Utah, where it makes about as much sense as the Los Angeles "Lakers." Although, that's another case of a team taking its name with it when moving from a place where the name made perfect sense (Minneapolis) to somewhere it doesn't make any (Los Angeles). The Lakers aren't the only basketball team in LA whose name makes no sense, though. The Clippers got their name in San Diego, where you can go sailing off the coast. LA's not on the coast. Western Canada is home to all kinds of animals like grizzly bears, so "Grizzlies" was a natural fit for a team from Vancouver. Memphis? Not so much.
Then there are the teams that moved to places where their existing nickname actually made more sense. OK, there's only one: the Houston Rockets. They were named the "Rockets" when they were founded in San Diego because that's where the booster rocket was developed. Then they moved to Houston, which is the home of the space program.
The Rockets aren't the only team whose name goes perfectly with the city where they play. Boston's got a large Irish population. "Celtics" is a nod to that. The Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia in 1776. Hence the Philadelphia 76ers. Orlando is the home of Disney World, the "Magic Kingdom." Even though it's a little cheesy, "Magic" is a really good name for a basketball team. "Pistons" comes from Detroit's place as home of the U.S. auto industry. Even though they didn't start out in Detroit, they might as well have, since that name makes perfect sense to me. Dallas already had the Cowboys when they got a basketball team. Why not piggyback on that and go with a type of cowboy, the "Maverick?" The Denver "Nuggets?" That goes back to Denver's history with mining. Minnesota is home to the largest population of timberwolves in the continental U.S. And "Timberwolves" is a really cool name.
One of the best team names in NBA history, though, is Seattle "SuperSonics." The Sonics got their name because when Seattle was awarded an NBA franchise, nearby Boeing had just gotten the contract to start building its supersonic planes. It went perfectly with the city. Then they moved to Oklahoma City and became the Thunder (more on that in a moment). The good news is, it looks like the Kings will be relocating to Seattle next season, where the Sonics will be reborn much like the Cleveland Browns and Winnipeg Jets before them.
Now that brings me to the former Sonics, the Oklahoma City Thunder. As long as they're in the league, they're in contention for worst team name in pro sports. I'm not really sure where the name "Thunder" came from other than Clay Bennett liking it. And what's the logo? I don't get the colors either. None of it seems to go together. (They also never should've left Seattle, which is automatic points against the Thunder in all areas.)
But, believe it or not, there's one NBA team name that's even dumber than "Pelicans" and "Thunder." That belongs to the franchise based in our nation's capital. I totally understand why they wanted to get away from the name "Bullets" in the mid-90s. (It's here where I point out the irony that this is the team Gilbert Arenas, who's best known for bringing a gun into the locker room, once played for.) But where did they get "Wizards" from? The other options when they were changing the name weren't much better (Dragons, Express, Stallions, Sea Dogs) weren't much better, but they weren't as bad as "Wizards" either. Terrible name, terrible logo. And just when you thought they couldn't make it any worse, they unveiled new uniforms last season that were supposed to be a throwback to the old logo and colors. Except, the Wizards are wearing uniforms based on the old color scheme of the Bullets. So much for getting away from that "Bullets" name.
While I'll miss the "Hornets," the name "Pelicans" no longer seems as stupid to me as it did when I first heard it. I'm still not a fan of the color scheme, just like I hate the Nets' black and white, but maybe it'll grow on me. Besides, the colors seem to be the most likely thing to change after a few years anyway. Regardless, since I'm not a Hornets fan, it makes no difference to me. If they want to be called the "Pelicans" now, more power to 'em.
And while the "Pelicans" name might be stupid, it at least makes sense. The pelican is Louisiana's state bird. Of course, the original New Orleans basketball team was the "Jazz," which is perfect for a team from that city. But they took the name with them to Utah, where it makes about as much sense as the Los Angeles "Lakers." Although, that's another case of a team taking its name with it when moving from a place where the name made perfect sense (Minneapolis) to somewhere it doesn't make any (Los Angeles). The Lakers aren't the only basketball team in LA whose name makes no sense, though. The Clippers got their name in San Diego, where you can go sailing off the coast. LA's not on the coast. Western Canada is home to all kinds of animals like grizzly bears, so "Grizzlies" was a natural fit for a team from Vancouver. Memphis? Not so much.
Then there are the teams that moved to places where their existing nickname actually made more sense. OK, there's only one: the Houston Rockets. They were named the "Rockets" when they were founded in San Diego because that's where the booster rocket was developed. Then they moved to Houston, which is the home of the space program.
The Rockets aren't the only team whose name goes perfectly with the city where they play. Boston's got a large Irish population. "Celtics" is a nod to that. The Declaration of Independence was signed in Philadelphia in 1776. Hence the Philadelphia 76ers. Orlando is the home of Disney World, the "Magic Kingdom." Even though it's a little cheesy, "Magic" is a really good name for a basketball team. "Pistons" comes from Detroit's place as home of the U.S. auto industry. Even though they didn't start out in Detroit, they might as well have, since that name makes perfect sense to me. Dallas already had the Cowboys when they got a basketball team. Why not piggyback on that and go with a type of cowboy, the "Maverick?" The Denver "Nuggets?" That goes back to Denver's history with mining. Minnesota is home to the largest population of timberwolves in the continental U.S. And "Timberwolves" is a really cool name.
One of the best team names in NBA history, though, is Seattle "SuperSonics." The Sonics got their name because when Seattle was awarded an NBA franchise, nearby Boeing had just gotten the contract to start building its supersonic planes. It went perfectly with the city. Then they moved to Oklahoma City and became the Thunder (more on that in a moment). The good news is, it looks like the Kings will be relocating to Seattle next season, where the Sonics will be reborn much like the Cleveland Browns and Winnipeg Jets before them.
Now that brings me to the former Sonics, the Oklahoma City Thunder. As long as they're in the league, they're in contention for worst team name in pro sports. I'm not really sure where the name "Thunder" came from other than Clay Bennett liking it. And what's the logo? I don't get the colors either. None of it seems to go together. (They also never should've left Seattle, which is automatic points against the Thunder in all areas.)
But, believe it or not, there's one NBA team name that's even dumber than "Pelicans" and "Thunder." That belongs to the franchise based in our nation's capital. I totally understand why they wanted to get away from the name "Bullets" in the mid-90s. (It's here where I point out the irony that this is the team Gilbert Arenas, who's best known for bringing a gun into the locker room, once played for.) But where did they get "Wizards" from? The other options when they were changing the name weren't much better (Dragons, Express, Stallions, Sea Dogs) weren't much better, but they weren't as bad as "Wizards" either. Terrible name, terrible logo. And just when you thought they couldn't make it any worse, they unveiled new uniforms last season that were supposed to be a throwback to the old logo and colors. Except, the Wizards are wearing uniforms based on the old color scheme of the Bullets. So much for getting away from that "Bullets" name.
While I'll miss the "Hornets," the name "Pelicans" no longer seems as stupid to me as it did when I first heard it. I'm still not a fan of the color scheme, just like I hate the Nets' black and white, but maybe it'll grow on me. Besides, the colors seem to be the most likely thing to change after a few years anyway. Regardless, since I'm not a Hornets fan, it makes no difference to me. If they want to be called the "Pelicans" now, more power to 'em.
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sibling Rivalry
Well, we all know that the HarBowl is going to be cool. And it's going to be the overriding storyline for the next two weeks. It, obviously will be the first time that two brothers are coaching against each other in the Super Bowl. We've all been waiting for the Peyton vs. Eli Super Bowl. Still waiting. This John vs. Jim one snuck up on us. And it's great.
While this is the first time that brothers have been on opposite sides in the Super Bowl (they're coaches, not players, but it still counts), it isn't the first time that we've had brothers go head-to-head with a championship on the line. In fact, it's happened a few times.
The first brothers that come to mind, obviously, are the Catching Molinas. But Bengie, Jose and Yadier have actually never playeda against each other in the World Series. Bengie was on the Rangers in 2010, but not when they played Yadier and the Cardinals in 2011. Bengie and Jose were teammates on the 2002 Angels, though. In total, the Molinas have six World Series rings (two each) and seven appearances between them. They won rings three years in a row (Jose-2009 Yankees, Bengie-2010 Giants, Yadier-2011 Cardinals), just like Livan (1997 Marlins) and El Duque Hernandez (1998-2000 Yankees) did.
Another great baseball family was the Alous: Felipe, Jesus and Matty. They were all members of the Giants, and Felipe and Matty were on the team when they lost to the Yankees in the 1962 World Series. The brother teammates are common throughout baseball history. Paul and Lloyd Waner are both in the Hall of Fame, and they spent a majority of their careers as teammates on the Pirates. Amazingly, Pittsburgh only went to one World Series with the brothers, though, losing to the Murders Row Yankees in 1927. And we can't forget Dizzy and Daffy Dean on the Gashouse Gang Cardinals of the '30s. They each won twice in the 1934 World Series, which was all the Cardinals needed to win the title.
Joe DiMaggio famously had two other baseball-playing brothers. His brother, Vince, was on the Reds when they played the Yankees in 1939, but Vince wasn't on Cincinnati's World Series roster, so that one doesn't count. There have been times where brothers actually did play against each other in the Series, though, most notably 1964, when Ken Boyer was the third baseman for the Cardinals and Clete Boyer played third base for the Yankees. You also had brothers go head-to-head in the World Series three years in a row from 1921-23, as Bob Meusel's Yankees took on Irish Meusel's Giants. But the first instance of the brother vs. brother World Series occurred in 1920. Doc Johnson was on the champion Indians and Jimmy played for the Dodgers that year.
In hockey, it's much more common. Since 1917, 13 different sets of brothers have won the Stanley Cup together. There were two sets of brothers on the 1923-24 Canadiens--Bill and Bobby Boucher and Odie and Sprague Cleghorn. Bill and Bun Cook won a pair of Cups with the Rangers, and the 1939-40 Rangers boasted two brother tandems (Mac and Neil Colville; Lynn and Muzz Patrick). More recently, you had Brent & Duane, two of the six hockey-playing Sutters on the 1981-82 and 1982-83 Islanders. Their brother, Darryl, was the Kings' coach last year. But the gold standard for hockey-playing brothers were the legendary Maurice Richard and his brother Henri. They won five consecutive Cups in Montreal in Henri's first five seasons (1955-56 to 1959-60).
You've also had the brothers winning Olympic medals together. Pavel and Valeri Bure won a pair of Olympic medals for Team Russia (silver in 1998, bronze in 2002). They were joined on the 1998 Russian team by Dmitri and Boris Mironov. Frantisek and Thomas Kaberle won broze in 2006 for the Czech Republic. Saku and Mikko Koivu were silver medalists with Finland in 2006, while Kenny and Jorgen Jonsson were both a part of Sweden's two gold medal teams (1994, 2006). And the two best active brother acts in the NHL are, of course, the Sedin twins, who almost won the Cup with Vancover two seasons ago (and did win Olympic gold in 2006), and the Staals. Marc plays for the Rangers, while Jordan and Eric are teammates on the Hurricanes. Luke and Brayden Schenn are also teammates, on the Flyers.
Brothers have gone against each other in the Stanley Cup Finals five times. When Scott Niedermayer and the Devils faced Rob Niedermayer and the Ducks in 2003, it was the first time since 1946 that brothers faced off on opposite sides in the Cup Finals. Scott later joined the Ducks, and they won one together in 2007. The other instances of this happening were Tiny (Bruins) and Paul (Rangers) Thompson in 1929 and Ken (Canadiens) and Terry (Bruins) Reardon in 1946. Buck and Frank Boucher and Corb and Cy Denney were the first brothers to meet in the Stanley Cup Finals, as Buck and Cy's Ottawa Senators beat Frank and Corb's Vancouver Millionaires in 1921.
The NBA has had its share of brothers, too. Horace and Harvey Grant were the last to go against each other in the Finals, when Horace and the Bulls topped Harvey and Blazers in 1992. Currently holding down the mantle on the basketball side are the Gasols, Pau with the Lakers and Marc with the Grizzlies.
So, with all these brother combinations throughout history, it's almost a surprise that it's taken this long to have brother vs. brother in the Super Bowl. I don't think it'll be too long until we have another one. Except this time, it'll be two brothers playing against each other. Maybe Peyton vs. Eli. Who knows? I do know one thing, though. Coach Harbaugh's team will be hoisting the Lombardi Trophy on Feb. 3.
While this is the first time that brothers have been on opposite sides in the Super Bowl (they're coaches, not players, but it still counts), it isn't the first time that we've had brothers go head-to-head with a championship on the line. In fact, it's happened a few times.
The first brothers that come to mind, obviously, are the Catching Molinas. But Bengie, Jose and Yadier have actually never playeda against each other in the World Series. Bengie was on the Rangers in 2010, but not when they played Yadier and the Cardinals in 2011. Bengie and Jose were teammates on the 2002 Angels, though. In total, the Molinas have six World Series rings (two each) and seven appearances between them. They won rings three years in a row (Jose-2009 Yankees, Bengie-2010 Giants, Yadier-2011 Cardinals), just like Livan (1997 Marlins) and El Duque Hernandez (1998-2000 Yankees) did.
Another great baseball family was the Alous: Felipe, Jesus and Matty. They were all members of the Giants, and Felipe and Matty were on the team when they lost to the Yankees in the 1962 World Series. The brother teammates are common throughout baseball history. Paul and Lloyd Waner are both in the Hall of Fame, and they spent a majority of their careers as teammates on the Pirates. Amazingly, Pittsburgh only went to one World Series with the brothers, though, losing to the Murders Row Yankees in 1927. And we can't forget Dizzy and Daffy Dean on the Gashouse Gang Cardinals of the '30s. They each won twice in the 1934 World Series, which was all the Cardinals needed to win the title.
Joe DiMaggio famously had two other baseball-playing brothers. His brother, Vince, was on the Reds when they played the Yankees in 1939, but Vince wasn't on Cincinnati's World Series roster, so that one doesn't count. There have been times where brothers actually did play against each other in the Series, though, most notably 1964, when Ken Boyer was the third baseman for the Cardinals and Clete Boyer played third base for the Yankees. You also had brothers go head-to-head in the World Series three years in a row from 1921-23, as Bob Meusel's Yankees took on Irish Meusel's Giants. But the first instance of the brother vs. brother World Series occurred in 1920. Doc Johnson was on the champion Indians and Jimmy played for the Dodgers that year.
In hockey, it's much more common. Since 1917, 13 different sets of brothers have won the Stanley Cup together. There were two sets of brothers on the 1923-24 Canadiens--Bill and Bobby Boucher and Odie and Sprague Cleghorn. Bill and Bun Cook won a pair of Cups with the Rangers, and the 1939-40 Rangers boasted two brother tandems (Mac and Neil Colville; Lynn and Muzz Patrick). More recently, you had Brent & Duane, two of the six hockey-playing Sutters on the 1981-82 and 1982-83 Islanders. Their brother, Darryl, was the Kings' coach last year. But the gold standard for hockey-playing brothers were the legendary Maurice Richard and his brother Henri. They won five consecutive Cups in Montreal in Henri's first five seasons (1955-56 to 1959-60).
You've also had the brothers winning Olympic medals together. Pavel and Valeri Bure won a pair of Olympic medals for Team Russia (silver in 1998, bronze in 2002). They were joined on the 1998 Russian team by Dmitri and Boris Mironov. Frantisek and Thomas Kaberle won broze in 2006 for the Czech Republic. Saku and Mikko Koivu were silver medalists with Finland in 2006, while Kenny and Jorgen Jonsson were both a part of Sweden's two gold medal teams (1994, 2006). And the two best active brother acts in the NHL are, of course, the Sedin twins, who almost won the Cup with Vancover two seasons ago (and did win Olympic gold in 2006), and the Staals. Marc plays for the Rangers, while Jordan and Eric are teammates on the Hurricanes. Luke and Brayden Schenn are also teammates, on the Flyers.
Brothers have gone against each other in the Stanley Cup Finals five times. When Scott Niedermayer and the Devils faced Rob Niedermayer and the Ducks in 2003, it was the first time since 1946 that brothers faced off on opposite sides in the Cup Finals. Scott later joined the Ducks, and they won one together in 2007. The other instances of this happening were Tiny (Bruins) and Paul (Rangers) Thompson in 1929 and Ken (Canadiens) and Terry (Bruins) Reardon in 1946. Buck and Frank Boucher and Corb and Cy Denney were the first brothers to meet in the Stanley Cup Finals, as Buck and Cy's Ottawa Senators beat Frank and Corb's Vancouver Millionaires in 1921.
The NBA has had its share of brothers, too. Horace and Harvey Grant were the last to go against each other in the Finals, when Horace and the Bulls topped Harvey and Blazers in 1992. Currently holding down the mantle on the basketball side are the Gasols, Pau with the Lakers and Marc with the Grizzlies.
So, with all these brother combinations throughout history, it's almost a surprise that it's taken this long to have brother vs. brother in the Super Bowl. I don't think it'll be too long until we have another one. Except this time, it'll be two brothers playing against each other. Maybe Peyton vs. Eli. Who knows? I do know one thing, though. Coach Harbaugh's team will be hoisting the Lombardi Trophy on Feb. 3.
Saturday, January 19, 2013
NFL Conference Championship Picks
I'm not sure the Conference Championship Games will be able to match the Divisional Playoffs in terms of excitement. Talk about those games last week! WOW!! Broncos-Ravens was an instant classic, then there was Colin Kaepernick proving why Jim Harbaugh made the right decision. And that was just Saturday! Then on Sunday wee got those two ridiculous comebacks in Atlanta. The only "dud" was New England-Houston, and even that game was pretty good. How's this week even going to come close? I just hope we have two good games, as the four best teams in football fight for the right to go to the Super Bowl.
I also think it's amazing how three of the four teams in the Conference Championship Games are the same as last year, and the one that's missing is the one that won the Super Bowl! Bottom line, though, is since they've been here before, the stage isn't going to be overwhelming. The Patriots are always in the AFC title game, and Joe Flacco's starting to become as much of a regular on this day as Brady. Will this be the time Baltimore finally wins after two AFC Championship losses? San Francisco, meanwhile, was an overtime field goal away from the Super Bowl last year. And let's not forget about Atlanta. Did last week do enough to show that Matt Ryan and the Falcons very much belong as the fourth member of this quartet. I can see all four of these teams hoisting the Lombardi Trophy in three weeks.
As for the two games...
NFC
49ers (12-4-1) at Falcons (14-3): San Francisco-If there were any questions about the 49ers offense, they were answered resoundingly last week. Everybody was saying the Packers wouldn't just win last week, but would also win the Super Bowl. Well, the 49ers had other ideas, putting up 45 points on the Green Bay defense in a shootout. We've known about San Francisco's Super Bowl-caliber defense for the last couple years. Now the offense is equally Super Bowl-caliber. Colin Kaepernick brings an added dimension that Alex Smith simply doesn't offer. And playing in a dome is only going to help that dangerous passing game. They don't have to worry about footing or weather or anything else. If the defense does its job, it'll be up to Kaepernick to win the game. I think he's up for the challenge.
However, Matt Ryan is certainly up to the challenge, too. The Broncos have Peyton Manning, yet took a knee and were content to go to overtime. The Falcons took a chance, and were rewarded by Matty Ice leading them down the field for the game-winning field goal after Seattle took the lead. (Denver was tied, but only needed a field goal, so, while the situations weren't identical, the criticism remains.) That should've shut up all of the Falcons' doubters once and for all, but San Francisco is still favored. Atlanta's been able to play that underdog card to its advantage all season, though, and the Falcons are hosting the NFC Championship Game for the first time, so you know their fans will be in it. They have to keep the fans involved, though. And they won't be able to get away with what happened last week again, because the 49ers are much better than the Seahawks.
I'm not surprised this is the NFC Championship matchup. The Falcons and 49ers have been clearly the two best teams in the conference all season. Both offenses are explosive, so it might come down to which defense has a better game. That's why I give the slight edge to San Francisco. The big-play capability of the 49ers defense, and its ability to shut Atlanta's offense down, will be the biggest factor. Atlanta has a better offense and San Francisco has a better defense, but the San Francisco offense is better than the Atlanta defense. And for some reason, I think Colin Kaepernick will be given the opportunity to win this game late in the fourth quarter, and he'll grab it by the horns and lead San Francisco to the Super Bowl.
AFC
Ravens (12-6) at Patriots (13-4): New England-The rematch. The good news for Baltimore is that Lee Evans and Billy Cundiff, the two guys who cost them the game last year, aren't on the team anymore. The bad news is that the Patriots are undefeated in AFC Championship Games played in Foxboro. Although, I'm not sure how much of a factor that'll actually be. The Ravens have beaten the Patriots on the road in the playoffs before, and they were in this exact same position last year, when they probably should've knocked them off again. Besides, nobody gave the Ravens a chance last week in Denver, yet they went toe-to-toe with the Broncos before winning (almost miraculously) in double overtime. Then there's the motivation of the Ray Lewis retirement. They want his last game to be the Super Bowl. Don't count out that factor.
I also think there are a couple other reasons why the Ravens have a legitimate chance here. First of all, they've got Joe Flacco. Flacco doesn't get the same respect/attention as some other quarterbacks, but this is his third AFC Championship Game, and he's proven he can win on the road in January, since the Ravens (it seems) never have any home games in the playoffs. Then there's Ray Rice. The explosive running back leaves the defense vulnerable to the big play (just ask the Broncos about that), and Flacco's got a tremendous big play receiver in Torry Smith. And even though it was down this year, the Ravens defense is still one of the best in the league, and they've gotten some of their key guys back from injury. Finally, the Ravens have already beaten the Patriots this year, in Baltimore in Week 3.
Although, it's almost impossible to pick against Tom Brady at home in the playoffs, especially in the AFC Championship Game. I just have a feeling the Patriots will find a way to pull it out and get back to the Super Bowl for the second straight year. They won't have Rob Gronkowski, but you know Brady and Belichick will come up with something to confuse the Ravens defense. The Ravens know that, too, which is why the New England defense will be key. Vince Wilfork takes up basically the entire offensive line by himself, so you have to figure they've got a decent shot at containing Ray Rice. That means it might be up to Flacco to beat them, and, if anything, the Patriots have shown a bend-but-don't-break approach on defense. Baltimore can't settle for field goals. If they do, New England wins.
While I don't think it'll be the New England blowout some are expecting, I do still think Tom Brady and Co. will find a way to pull it out. Whatever the matchup is, though, there will be some intriguing Super Bowl storylines. Will it be the 49ers-Ravens "Haurghbowl?" If it's Falcons vs. Ravens, the final game in the careers of both Tony Gonzalez and Ray Lewis will be the Super Bowl. Or 49ers-Patriots, like I'm prediciting, would be Brady vs. Kaepernick, and that'd just be fun to watch. No matter what, I think we've got two great Conference Championship Games in store for us first. These are the four best teams in football. Come Sunday, two of them will prove it.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 5-3
Season: 175-88-1
I also think it's amazing how three of the four teams in the Conference Championship Games are the same as last year, and the one that's missing is the one that won the Super Bowl! Bottom line, though, is since they've been here before, the stage isn't going to be overwhelming. The Patriots are always in the AFC title game, and Joe Flacco's starting to become as much of a regular on this day as Brady. Will this be the time Baltimore finally wins after two AFC Championship losses? San Francisco, meanwhile, was an overtime field goal away from the Super Bowl last year. And let's not forget about Atlanta. Did last week do enough to show that Matt Ryan and the Falcons very much belong as the fourth member of this quartet. I can see all four of these teams hoisting the Lombardi Trophy in three weeks.
As for the two games...
NFC
49ers (12-4-1) at Falcons (14-3): San Francisco-If there were any questions about the 49ers offense, they were answered resoundingly last week. Everybody was saying the Packers wouldn't just win last week, but would also win the Super Bowl. Well, the 49ers had other ideas, putting up 45 points on the Green Bay defense in a shootout. We've known about San Francisco's Super Bowl-caliber defense for the last couple years. Now the offense is equally Super Bowl-caliber. Colin Kaepernick brings an added dimension that Alex Smith simply doesn't offer. And playing in a dome is only going to help that dangerous passing game. They don't have to worry about footing or weather or anything else. If the defense does its job, it'll be up to Kaepernick to win the game. I think he's up for the challenge.
However, Matt Ryan is certainly up to the challenge, too. The Broncos have Peyton Manning, yet took a knee and were content to go to overtime. The Falcons took a chance, and were rewarded by Matty Ice leading them down the field for the game-winning field goal after Seattle took the lead. (Denver was tied, but only needed a field goal, so, while the situations weren't identical, the criticism remains.) That should've shut up all of the Falcons' doubters once and for all, but San Francisco is still favored. Atlanta's been able to play that underdog card to its advantage all season, though, and the Falcons are hosting the NFC Championship Game for the first time, so you know their fans will be in it. They have to keep the fans involved, though. And they won't be able to get away with what happened last week again, because the 49ers are much better than the Seahawks.
I'm not surprised this is the NFC Championship matchup. The Falcons and 49ers have been clearly the two best teams in the conference all season. Both offenses are explosive, so it might come down to which defense has a better game. That's why I give the slight edge to San Francisco. The big-play capability of the 49ers defense, and its ability to shut Atlanta's offense down, will be the biggest factor. Atlanta has a better offense and San Francisco has a better defense, but the San Francisco offense is better than the Atlanta defense. And for some reason, I think Colin Kaepernick will be given the opportunity to win this game late in the fourth quarter, and he'll grab it by the horns and lead San Francisco to the Super Bowl.
AFC
Ravens (12-6) at Patriots (13-4): New England-The rematch. The good news for Baltimore is that Lee Evans and Billy Cundiff, the two guys who cost them the game last year, aren't on the team anymore. The bad news is that the Patriots are undefeated in AFC Championship Games played in Foxboro. Although, I'm not sure how much of a factor that'll actually be. The Ravens have beaten the Patriots on the road in the playoffs before, and they were in this exact same position last year, when they probably should've knocked them off again. Besides, nobody gave the Ravens a chance last week in Denver, yet they went toe-to-toe with the Broncos before winning (almost miraculously) in double overtime. Then there's the motivation of the Ray Lewis retirement. They want his last game to be the Super Bowl. Don't count out that factor.
I also think there are a couple other reasons why the Ravens have a legitimate chance here. First of all, they've got Joe Flacco. Flacco doesn't get the same respect/attention as some other quarterbacks, but this is his third AFC Championship Game, and he's proven he can win on the road in January, since the Ravens (it seems) never have any home games in the playoffs. Then there's Ray Rice. The explosive running back leaves the defense vulnerable to the big play (just ask the Broncos about that), and Flacco's got a tremendous big play receiver in Torry Smith. And even though it was down this year, the Ravens defense is still one of the best in the league, and they've gotten some of their key guys back from injury. Finally, the Ravens have already beaten the Patriots this year, in Baltimore in Week 3.
Although, it's almost impossible to pick against Tom Brady at home in the playoffs, especially in the AFC Championship Game. I just have a feeling the Patriots will find a way to pull it out and get back to the Super Bowl for the second straight year. They won't have Rob Gronkowski, but you know Brady and Belichick will come up with something to confuse the Ravens defense. The Ravens know that, too, which is why the New England defense will be key. Vince Wilfork takes up basically the entire offensive line by himself, so you have to figure they've got a decent shot at containing Ray Rice. That means it might be up to Flacco to beat them, and, if anything, the Patriots have shown a bend-but-don't-break approach on defense. Baltimore can't settle for field goals. If they do, New England wins.
While I don't think it'll be the New England blowout some are expecting, I do still think Tom Brady and Co. will find a way to pull it out. Whatever the matchup is, though, there will be some intriguing Super Bowl storylines. Will it be the 49ers-Ravens "Haurghbowl?" If it's Falcons vs. Ravens, the final game in the careers of both Tony Gonzalez and Ray Lewis will be the Super Bowl. Or 49ers-Patriots, like I'm prediciting, would be Brady vs. Kaepernick, and that'd just be fun to watch. No matter what, I think we've got two great Conference Championship Games in store for us first. These are the four best teams in football. Come Sunday, two of them will prove it.
Last Week: 3-1
Playoffs: 5-3
Season: 175-88-1
Thursday, January 17, 2013
Hockey's Back
There sure is a lot of stuff going on for mid-January. There's, of course, Lance Armstrong's interview with Oprah and that crazy crap about Manti Te'o's girlfriend. And let's not forget they announced the rosters for the World Baseball Classic today. But all that pales in comparison to what's really important. WE'RE TWO DAYS AWAY FROM HOCKEY SEASON!!!
After this ridiculous lockout that was drawn out for waaaaaaaaaaaay too long, we've got a condensed 48-game schedule ahead of us. The shortened schedule's going to be tough for sure, but it's certainly going to add intensity to every game. And every game is going to be bigger. If you get off to a bad start, you won't have that much time to recover if you want to make the playoffs. Likewise, a great start could be enough to propel a team into the postseason. It's also safe to say that the playoffs will be even more of a crapshoot than usual. In 1995, the last 48-game lockout-shortened season, the defending champion Rangers were the last team in as the No. 8 seed, yet beat the Nordiques in the first round.
We're also likely to see much better hockey throughout the season. With the season starting three months late and no preseason, guys have had plenty of time to recover from injuries. Likewise, teams that make a deep playoff run won't end up with 100 or more games played. If the Stanley Cup Finals go the distance, the two finalists will have played a maximum 76 games. Or, six less than a normal regular season. Sure, the condensed schedule will present its problems, but I have a feeling we're going to see a better product.
As for who to look out for as Cup contenders, you've got to start in the Atlantic Division. That division is loaded. The Rangers were the top seed in the East and made it all the way to the Conference Finals last season. This year, they might be better. They traded for Rick Nash, the best player on the market, giving them two ridiculous forward lines. They have the best goalie in the league in Henrik Lundqvist, and that defense anchored by Dan Girardi and Marc Staal is also one of the best around. Yet they realistically might not even win the division. That's because the Pittsburgh Penguins are once again on the short-list of Stanley Cup favorites. Sidney Crosby is arguably the best player in hockey, and Evgeni Malkin won the Hart Trophy last year. Then there's the Flyers, who are always in the discussion, and the Devils, last season's Cup finalists. Once again, the Islanders have no chance. One element of the conference-games only schedule is the abundance of games within the division. The teams in the Atlantic Divison will eat each other alive. But whoever survives this division will be in prime position to play deep into June.
The Bruins won the Cup two years ago and are probably the best team in the Northeast Division. I'm interested to see how Tuuka Rask will do as Boston's starting goalie, though. I think they'll be fine, but he's the only question mark. The Sabres were perhaps the most disappointing team in hockey last season. Buffalo's got a ton of talent, but didn't even make the playoffs in 2011-12. That's all the motivation they need to get back to the postseason in 2013. Ryan Miller and a short season might make the Sabres the division favorites. Ottawa's the best of the three Canadian teams. The Senators are better than they were last year, when they took the Rangers to seven games in the first round. As hard to believe as it might be, Toronto is the only team in the NHL that hasn't made the playoffs since the last lockout. Toronto. The largest city in a hockey-mad country. It's hard to fathom. Montreal's also down. Two of hockey's marquee franchises will be fighting each other to stay out of the division cellar.
Washington is the class of the Southeast Division. But the Capitals also seem like the good team most likely to get off to a bad start and miss the playoffs as a result. Especially because there are some underrated teams in this division, starting with the Tampa Bay Lightning. Tampa Bay reached the Conference Finals in 2011, then missed the playoffs last year. That team's loaded with talent, though, starting with Steven Stamkos. Carolina is also better now that they've added Jordan Staal to complement his brother Eric. I don't know what to make of the Florida Panthers. Last year seems like a flash in the pan. The pressure's on them to prove it wasn't. Winnipeg will likely be done in by the amount of travel they'll have to do.
With the Blues' reemergence last season, the Central Division is suddenly in contention with the Atlantic as the strongest in hockey. Detroit, obviously, has been one of the league's elite teams for years. The Red Wings made the Finals in that 1995 lockout season, starting their incredible run. That doesn't seem likely to change this year. The Red Wings aren't the clear-cut best team in this division, though. Last season was the start of something big in St. Louis that's not going to stop anytime soon. And let's not forget that Chicago won the Cup in 2010 or that Nashville is one of the brighest, up-and-coming teams in the NHL. The Blackhawks and Predators are both capable of winning the division, too. I wouldn't be surprised to see all four make the playoffs. The Columbus Blue Jackets are one of the worst-run organizations in professional sports, and trading their best player (Rick Nash) didn't help.
Vancouver has been among the handful of top teams in the league for the last few seasons. The Canucks haven't won it all, though, and goalie Roberto Luongo is often considered one of the reasons why. However, he lost his starting job in last year's playoffs and now they're looking to trade him. It's not like Corey Schneider is much of a drop-off, so the Canucks should be in the thick of things again this season. After missing the playoffs again last season, Minnesota went out and spent a lot of money in free agency, most notably signing former Devils captain (and Minnesota native) Zach Parise. That's either going to make the Wild serious contenders or a major bust. I think contender is more likely. Calgary has Jarome Iginla and Miikka Kiprusoff. If the Flames sneak into the playoffs, they could be dangerous. Colorado might be a year away, and Edmonton has been so bad for so long that they're eventually going to be hockey's version of the Washington Nationals, a young, talented team built on homegrown high draft picks. Give the Oilers two years.
The Pacific Division boasts the defending champion Kings and the perennially underachieving Sharks. If the late start is going to benefit anybody, it's LA, who returns virtually the same team that hoisted the Cup in June. The extended break gave the Kings plenty of time to get healthy, and the Stanley Cup hangover likely won't be as large as it normally is, when the break is only two months. But the Kings snuck in as the No. 8 seed and got hot at the right time last year. If that happens again, they might not even make the playoffs. Like Vancouver, you know San Jose is always going to be around. The Sharks are, once again, among the handful of best teams in hockey. Will this year finally be that breakthrough to the Finals? Anaheim had an incredibly disappointing campaign in 2011-12. The Ducks have some of the best talent in the NHL, yet finished last in the division. I see them rebounding, but I'm not sure they'll challenge the other two California teams. Phoenix earned a surprising, remarkable division title last season, and they carried that success into a run to the West Finals. But in a division (and conference) this loaded, I'm not sure the Coyotes are capable of doing it again. The Stars got better, and they're going to be fun to watch with Jamie Benn and Jaromir Jagr, but this division is too tough.
While the short season may result in some good teams missing the playoffs entirely, I think the elite clubs will still find a way to prove themselves. In the East, that's the Rangers and Penguins. That's my pick for the Eastern Conference Finals. As for the Western Conference, it's hard not to pick Kings-Sharks, although I think the Canucks could also sneak in there. I'll take Rangers vs. Sharks in the Stanley Cup Finals, with San Jose finally earning its first title.
After this ridiculous lockout that was drawn out for waaaaaaaaaaaay too long, we've got a condensed 48-game schedule ahead of us. The shortened schedule's going to be tough for sure, but it's certainly going to add intensity to every game. And every game is going to be bigger. If you get off to a bad start, you won't have that much time to recover if you want to make the playoffs. Likewise, a great start could be enough to propel a team into the postseason. It's also safe to say that the playoffs will be even more of a crapshoot than usual. In 1995, the last 48-game lockout-shortened season, the defending champion Rangers were the last team in as the No. 8 seed, yet beat the Nordiques in the first round.
We're also likely to see much better hockey throughout the season. With the season starting three months late and no preseason, guys have had plenty of time to recover from injuries. Likewise, teams that make a deep playoff run won't end up with 100 or more games played. If the Stanley Cup Finals go the distance, the two finalists will have played a maximum 76 games. Or, six less than a normal regular season. Sure, the condensed schedule will present its problems, but I have a feeling we're going to see a better product.
As for who to look out for as Cup contenders, you've got to start in the Atlantic Division. That division is loaded. The Rangers were the top seed in the East and made it all the way to the Conference Finals last season. This year, they might be better. They traded for Rick Nash, the best player on the market, giving them two ridiculous forward lines. They have the best goalie in the league in Henrik Lundqvist, and that defense anchored by Dan Girardi and Marc Staal is also one of the best around. Yet they realistically might not even win the division. That's because the Pittsburgh Penguins are once again on the short-list of Stanley Cup favorites. Sidney Crosby is arguably the best player in hockey, and Evgeni Malkin won the Hart Trophy last year. Then there's the Flyers, who are always in the discussion, and the Devils, last season's Cup finalists. Once again, the Islanders have no chance. One element of the conference-games only schedule is the abundance of games within the division. The teams in the Atlantic Divison will eat each other alive. But whoever survives this division will be in prime position to play deep into June.
The Bruins won the Cup two years ago and are probably the best team in the Northeast Division. I'm interested to see how Tuuka Rask will do as Boston's starting goalie, though. I think they'll be fine, but he's the only question mark. The Sabres were perhaps the most disappointing team in hockey last season. Buffalo's got a ton of talent, but didn't even make the playoffs in 2011-12. That's all the motivation they need to get back to the postseason in 2013. Ryan Miller and a short season might make the Sabres the division favorites. Ottawa's the best of the three Canadian teams. The Senators are better than they were last year, when they took the Rangers to seven games in the first round. As hard to believe as it might be, Toronto is the only team in the NHL that hasn't made the playoffs since the last lockout. Toronto. The largest city in a hockey-mad country. It's hard to fathom. Montreal's also down. Two of hockey's marquee franchises will be fighting each other to stay out of the division cellar.
Washington is the class of the Southeast Division. But the Capitals also seem like the good team most likely to get off to a bad start and miss the playoffs as a result. Especially because there are some underrated teams in this division, starting with the Tampa Bay Lightning. Tampa Bay reached the Conference Finals in 2011, then missed the playoffs last year. That team's loaded with talent, though, starting with Steven Stamkos. Carolina is also better now that they've added Jordan Staal to complement his brother Eric. I don't know what to make of the Florida Panthers. Last year seems like a flash in the pan. The pressure's on them to prove it wasn't. Winnipeg will likely be done in by the amount of travel they'll have to do.
With the Blues' reemergence last season, the Central Division is suddenly in contention with the Atlantic as the strongest in hockey. Detroit, obviously, has been one of the league's elite teams for years. The Red Wings made the Finals in that 1995 lockout season, starting their incredible run. That doesn't seem likely to change this year. The Red Wings aren't the clear-cut best team in this division, though. Last season was the start of something big in St. Louis that's not going to stop anytime soon. And let's not forget that Chicago won the Cup in 2010 or that Nashville is one of the brighest, up-and-coming teams in the NHL. The Blackhawks and Predators are both capable of winning the division, too. I wouldn't be surprised to see all four make the playoffs. The Columbus Blue Jackets are one of the worst-run organizations in professional sports, and trading their best player (Rick Nash) didn't help.
Vancouver has been among the handful of top teams in the league for the last few seasons. The Canucks haven't won it all, though, and goalie Roberto Luongo is often considered one of the reasons why. However, he lost his starting job in last year's playoffs and now they're looking to trade him. It's not like Corey Schneider is much of a drop-off, so the Canucks should be in the thick of things again this season. After missing the playoffs again last season, Minnesota went out and spent a lot of money in free agency, most notably signing former Devils captain (and Minnesota native) Zach Parise. That's either going to make the Wild serious contenders or a major bust. I think contender is more likely. Calgary has Jarome Iginla and Miikka Kiprusoff. If the Flames sneak into the playoffs, they could be dangerous. Colorado might be a year away, and Edmonton has been so bad for so long that they're eventually going to be hockey's version of the Washington Nationals, a young, talented team built on homegrown high draft picks. Give the Oilers two years.
The Pacific Division boasts the defending champion Kings and the perennially underachieving Sharks. If the late start is going to benefit anybody, it's LA, who returns virtually the same team that hoisted the Cup in June. The extended break gave the Kings plenty of time to get healthy, and the Stanley Cup hangover likely won't be as large as it normally is, when the break is only two months. But the Kings snuck in as the No. 8 seed and got hot at the right time last year. If that happens again, they might not even make the playoffs. Like Vancouver, you know San Jose is always going to be around. The Sharks are, once again, among the handful of best teams in hockey. Will this year finally be that breakthrough to the Finals? Anaheim had an incredibly disappointing campaign in 2011-12. The Ducks have some of the best talent in the NHL, yet finished last in the division. I see them rebounding, but I'm not sure they'll challenge the other two California teams. Phoenix earned a surprising, remarkable division title last season, and they carried that success into a run to the West Finals. But in a division (and conference) this loaded, I'm not sure the Coyotes are capable of doing it again. The Stars got better, and they're going to be fun to watch with Jamie Benn and Jaromir Jagr, but this division is too tough.
While the short season may result in some good teams missing the playoffs entirely, I think the elite clubs will still find a way to prove themselves. In the East, that's the Rangers and Penguins. That's my pick for the Eastern Conference Finals. As for the Western Conference, it's hard not to pick Kings-Sharks, although I think the Canucks could also sneak in there. I'll take Rangers vs. Sharks in the Stanley Cup Finals, with San Jose finally earning its first title.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Getting Played for Fools
Today I had a friend suggest to me that I should do a blog about Lance Armstrong. Since I was already thinking about Lance and his admission on Oprah that's set to air on Thursday and Friday, that will in fact be our topic du jour.
Except, Lance Armstrong presents me with a tremendous personal dilemma. In the past, I've gone on record as an Armstrong supporter. After the USADA revealed its initial findings regarding Armstrong, I was candid in my criticism of the organization and openly questioned its motives. One of my arguments was that maybe he was tired of continuing a fight he clearly wasn't going to win when everybody had already made their judgements about him. Well, it turns out I was wrong. And I feel like an idiot. Lance Armstrong played us all for fools. For 15 years. And I fell for it. Hook, line and sinker.
Now I know why he decided not to fight the USADA's allegations. Because they were true. Of course he denied it at first, just like he has for all these years. Then they released the full case file with its mountains of evidence, and it became pretty clear that he was guilty of something. Still nothing. Yet now, all these months later, after his Tour de France titles were taken away, he was banned for life from competitive cycling, he was forced to resign from his own company, he lost sponsors left and right, and whatever was left of his reputation was gone, we get this LeBronesque made-for-TV admission. And I'm left thinking, "Was this all part of the plan?"
By confirming what many have suspected for a long time, is Lance Armstrong trying to regain whatever's left of his dignity? Is it the first step in rebuilding a tattered legacy? Is it a sincere attempt at an apology/explanation? Or is it a carefully calculated move? Is coming clean the first, necessary part of a master plan that ends with his lifetime ban being reduced? More importantly, how did he come to this decision? When this whole saga started, was he planning on ultimately admitting his guilt all along? Or did he make this decision fairly recently? Did he feel he was left with no other choice?
The truth is, we'll never know. Even now, Lance Armstrong remains a mystery. ESPN.com asked a poll question earlier today regarding the public's perception of Lance Armstrong. While "mostly positive" will never be an option again (I'm not sure how much it was before), the vote was almost split between "mostly negative" and "both positive and negative." I can see why. Because disgraced former champion or not, it's impossible to view Lance Armstrong in a vacuum. His story of overcoming cancer is truly remarkable. And all the money that he helped raise for cancer research can't be ignored. But so many people will never be able to get over the steroids or the years of lying about it. I get that, too.
Even those of us who've been Armstrong supporters have to view him differently now. Unlike Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, there's no longer any dispute regarding Lance Armstrong and performance-enhancing drugs. But is a tainted champion in a tainted sport really the root of all evil like so many would have you believe? Of course not. And as much as some in the cycling community may want to, it's impossible to act as if Lance Armstrong never existed.
One hundred years from now, people are going to wonder why there was no winner of the Tour de France from 1999-2005. How do you explain why without bringing up Lance Armstrong? Likewise, in an era where cycling was such a dirty sport, how are we to know he wouldn't have won those Tour de France titles anyway. Most importantly, Lance Armstrong is the most important person ever to sit on a bicycle. And the most famous.
Lance Armstrong is a household name. Everybody knows who he is, and everybody has an opinion about him. Before him, the Tour de France was completely irrelevant in America. Now every stage is shown live in its entirety on NBC Sports Network. Talking about Lance Armstrong meant people were talking about cycling. As the old cliche goes, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." That's especially true for the sport of cycling. Where the options are usually bad publicity or no publicity.
That's what makes everything about the Lance Armstrong Saga so difficult. In more ways than one. He can no longer be viewed as a hero. But should he be seen as a villian? I have a hard time saying he is. It's not that simple. It never will be. I think Lance Armstrong will forever end up somewhere in the middle. In that gray area between hero and villain.
Maybe this admission is indeed the beginning of a journey to redemption. Who knows what the future holds for Lance Armstrong? Instead of his entire biography, the last few years might end up just being a chapter or two. Nobody knows. The only thing that we can be sure of is that Lance Armstrong will remain a polarizing figure. And picking which side you fall on is harder than it seems.
Except, Lance Armstrong presents me with a tremendous personal dilemma. In the past, I've gone on record as an Armstrong supporter. After the USADA revealed its initial findings regarding Armstrong, I was candid in my criticism of the organization and openly questioned its motives. One of my arguments was that maybe he was tired of continuing a fight he clearly wasn't going to win when everybody had already made their judgements about him. Well, it turns out I was wrong. And I feel like an idiot. Lance Armstrong played us all for fools. For 15 years. And I fell for it. Hook, line and sinker.
Now I know why he decided not to fight the USADA's allegations. Because they were true. Of course he denied it at first, just like he has for all these years. Then they released the full case file with its mountains of evidence, and it became pretty clear that he was guilty of something. Still nothing. Yet now, all these months later, after his Tour de France titles were taken away, he was banned for life from competitive cycling, he was forced to resign from his own company, he lost sponsors left and right, and whatever was left of his reputation was gone, we get this LeBronesque made-for-TV admission. And I'm left thinking, "Was this all part of the plan?"
By confirming what many have suspected for a long time, is Lance Armstrong trying to regain whatever's left of his dignity? Is it the first step in rebuilding a tattered legacy? Is it a sincere attempt at an apology/explanation? Or is it a carefully calculated move? Is coming clean the first, necessary part of a master plan that ends with his lifetime ban being reduced? More importantly, how did he come to this decision? When this whole saga started, was he planning on ultimately admitting his guilt all along? Or did he make this decision fairly recently? Did he feel he was left with no other choice?
The truth is, we'll never know. Even now, Lance Armstrong remains a mystery. ESPN.com asked a poll question earlier today regarding the public's perception of Lance Armstrong. While "mostly positive" will never be an option again (I'm not sure how much it was before), the vote was almost split between "mostly negative" and "both positive and negative." I can see why. Because disgraced former champion or not, it's impossible to view Lance Armstrong in a vacuum. His story of overcoming cancer is truly remarkable. And all the money that he helped raise for cancer research can't be ignored. But so many people will never be able to get over the steroids or the years of lying about it. I get that, too.
Even those of us who've been Armstrong supporters have to view him differently now. Unlike Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, there's no longer any dispute regarding Lance Armstrong and performance-enhancing drugs. But is a tainted champion in a tainted sport really the root of all evil like so many would have you believe? Of course not. And as much as some in the cycling community may want to, it's impossible to act as if Lance Armstrong never existed.
One hundred years from now, people are going to wonder why there was no winner of the Tour de France from 1999-2005. How do you explain why without bringing up Lance Armstrong? Likewise, in an era where cycling was such a dirty sport, how are we to know he wouldn't have won those Tour de France titles anyway. Most importantly, Lance Armstrong is the most important person ever to sit on a bicycle. And the most famous.
Lance Armstrong is a household name. Everybody knows who he is, and everybody has an opinion about him. Before him, the Tour de France was completely irrelevant in America. Now every stage is shown live in its entirety on NBC Sports Network. Talking about Lance Armstrong meant people were talking about cycling. As the old cliche goes, "There's no such thing as bad publicity." That's especially true for the sport of cycling. Where the options are usually bad publicity or no publicity.
That's what makes everything about the Lance Armstrong Saga so difficult. In more ways than one. He can no longer be viewed as a hero. But should he be seen as a villian? I have a hard time saying he is. It's not that simple. It never will be. I think Lance Armstrong will forever end up somewhere in the middle. In that gray area between hero and villain.
Maybe this admission is indeed the beginning of a journey to redemption. Who knows what the future holds for Lance Armstrong? Instead of his entire biography, the last few years might end up just being a chapter or two. Nobody knows. The only thing that we can be sure of is that Lance Armstrong will remain a polarizing figure. And picking which side you fall on is harder than it seems.
Sunday, January 13, 2013
Tennis Time, Mate
The Australian Open always feels weird. First of all, it's awkward to be talking about tennis in mid-January. But that's summer in Australia. It's also a little confusing that each day's schedule starts at 7:00 the night before and the night sessions begin at 3 a.m. That's what a 16-hour time difference can do for you, though.
Regardless, the Australian Open is a big deal. It's the first Grand Slam tournament of the year, and it often sets the tone for what we're going to see over the next 10 months. It's also the most unpredictable major. Because the top players usually start their season at the Australian Open, you have no idea how they're going to play after a two-month layoff. Likewise, who's going to be the unheralded player that makes a deep run in Melbourne? You used to be able to count on at least one completely out-of-the-blue semifinalist on the men's side. That is until Novak Djokovic decided he was going to win every year. We still get some surprises on the women's side, but even that tournament is starting to become more predictable.
As I mentioned, Novak Djokovic has made Australia his exclusive domain over the past couple years. This is where he finally broke through for his first Grand Slam title, and Djokovic is the two-time defending champ Down Under. Going into last year's Aussie Open, you could count on one of three guys to win the title. That was before Andy Murray won the Olympics and the U.S. Open to turn the Big Three into a Big Four. However, only three of the four will be in Melbourne because the little Spanish pansy's knee still hurts. That means one semifinal berth is up for grabs...at least for the guys lucky enough to be in the other quarter of the draw.
It's not like Djokovic needed any favors from the draw, but he got one anyway. Murray and Federer are in the same section, while Djokovic gets the fourth semifinalist. I have a hard time picturing a final that doesn't include him. Likewise, Murray and Federer should both get to the semis, although they do both have potentially challenging quarterfinal matchups (Murray vs. Juan Martin Del Potro, Federer vs. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga). I see them both getting through, however, setting up a sensational semifinal matchup that should be more competitive than their Wimbledon (won by Federer) and Olympic (won by Murray) finals last year.
As for the remaining semifinalist, I'm going with eighth-seeded Janko Tipsarevic, who reached the quarters of the U.S. Open last year. Tipsarevic lost that quarterfinal to David Ferrer, the fifth-best player in the world, who took advantage of Nadal not being there to keep his seed and make it to the U.S. Open semis. He's still ranked fifth and seeded fourth, so Ferrer is the "favorite" to make it out of this section of the draw, but he's obviosuly also the most likely of the four to not get there.
I don't really think I'm going out on a limb to say Djokovic beats Tipsarevic in one semifinal. He owns this tournament the way Nadal owns Roland Garros. The other semi should be interesting, though. My predicition about Andy Murray came true. A sleeping giant was awakened with that Olympic gold medal. But Roger's also on a mission. He doesn't want to wait two years for another Slam again. We'll see a very focused Roger Federer over the next two weeks in Melbourne. I'm not sure it matters, though. I see Murray winning, setting up a rematch of his epic Australian Open matchup with Djokovic last year. The outcome, however, will be the same. Novak Djokovic wins his third straight Australian Open title.
As for the women, there are three players that stand above the rest. The top three players in the world--Victoria Azarenka, Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams. Out of the three, though, Serena has to be the odds-on favorite. She lost in the first round of the French Open last year, then won both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open while throwing in an Olympic gold medal to boot. Serena's lost once since Wimbledon. If Serena opens this year the way she ended last year, she'll be very tough to beat.
But if there's anyone who can beat her, it's probably Victoria Azarenka. Azarenka won her first Grand Slam title here last year, then held down the No. 1 ranking for most of the year. She won Olympic bronze in London, and almost won her second Slam of the year at the U.S. Open, giving Serena all she could handle and then some in the final. Vika and Serena are on track for a semifinal meeting, but, as much as I like Azarenka's chances, I'm not certain that matchup's a guarantee. Former No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki should've won this tournament two years ago. She's still looking for that first Grand Slam title and has the game to pull off the mild upset of Azarenka in the quarters.
Sharapova's path to the final is much clearer. She's the class of the field in the bottom half of the draw. A phenomenal matchup against Venus Williams awaits her in the third round, but at this point in their careers, Sharapova should be able to handle Venus. Former champ Li Na and Aussie favorite Sam Stosur are also in the bottom half of the draw, but if Sharapova's on her game, neither one should be a threat. Fourth-seeded Aggie Radwanska and fifth-seeded Angelique Kerber are both capable of deep runs, but I don't think either one's a contender for the title. The only other name to watch out for in the bottom half of the women's draw is Ana Ivanovic, a former finalist here and former French Open champion. Last year, she showed signs that her game has finally returned. If that's indeed the case and she continues to play the way she did when she was No. 1 in the world, Ivanovic could be an outside contender.
My four women's semifinalists are Wozniacki, Serena, Ivanovic and Sharapova (that's a good-looking bunch of semifinalists!). If Wozniacki and Ivanovic get there, it would be impressive runs. But Serena and Maria would easily win those two matchups. They're the two best players in the women's game right now. Should they both get there, it would be an incredible final. But I remember the Serena Williams that dominated the women's game. Serena's close to that level again. If she keeps it up for two weeks, she goes for her second "Serena Slam" in Paris.
Regardless, the Australian Open is a big deal. It's the first Grand Slam tournament of the year, and it often sets the tone for what we're going to see over the next 10 months. It's also the most unpredictable major. Because the top players usually start their season at the Australian Open, you have no idea how they're going to play after a two-month layoff. Likewise, who's going to be the unheralded player that makes a deep run in Melbourne? You used to be able to count on at least one completely out-of-the-blue semifinalist on the men's side. That is until Novak Djokovic decided he was going to win every year. We still get some surprises on the women's side, but even that tournament is starting to become more predictable.
As I mentioned, Novak Djokovic has made Australia his exclusive domain over the past couple years. This is where he finally broke through for his first Grand Slam title, and Djokovic is the two-time defending champ Down Under. Going into last year's Aussie Open, you could count on one of three guys to win the title. That was before Andy Murray won the Olympics and the U.S. Open to turn the Big Three into a Big Four. However, only three of the four will be in Melbourne because the little Spanish pansy's knee still hurts. That means one semifinal berth is up for grabs...at least for the guys lucky enough to be in the other quarter of the draw.
It's not like Djokovic needed any favors from the draw, but he got one anyway. Murray and Federer are in the same section, while Djokovic gets the fourth semifinalist. I have a hard time picturing a final that doesn't include him. Likewise, Murray and Federer should both get to the semis, although they do both have potentially challenging quarterfinal matchups (Murray vs. Juan Martin Del Potro, Federer vs. Jo-Wilfried Tsonga). I see them both getting through, however, setting up a sensational semifinal matchup that should be more competitive than their Wimbledon (won by Federer) and Olympic (won by Murray) finals last year.
As for the remaining semifinalist, I'm going with eighth-seeded Janko Tipsarevic, who reached the quarters of the U.S. Open last year. Tipsarevic lost that quarterfinal to David Ferrer, the fifth-best player in the world, who took advantage of Nadal not being there to keep his seed and make it to the U.S. Open semis. He's still ranked fifth and seeded fourth, so Ferrer is the "favorite" to make it out of this section of the draw, but he's obviosuly also the most likely of the four to not get there.
I don't really think I'm going out on a limb to say Djokovic beats Tipsarevic in one semifinal. He owns this tournament the way Nadal owns Roland Garros. The other semi should be interesting, though. My predicition about Andy Murray came true. A sleeping giant was awakened with that Olympic gold medal. But Roger's also on a mission. He doesn't want to wait two years for another Slam again. We'll see a very focused Roger Federer over the next two weeks in Melbourne. I'm not sure it matters, though. I see Murray winning, setting up a rematch of his epic Australian Open matchup with Djokovic last year. The outcome, however, will be the same. Novak Djokovic wins his third straight Australian Open title.
As for the women, there are three players that stand above the rest. The top three players in the world--Victoria Azarenka, Maria Sharapova and Serena Williams. Out of the three, though, Serena has to be the odds-on favorite. She lost in the first round of the French Open last year, then won both Wimbledon and the U.S. Open while throwing in an Olympic gold medal to boot. Serena's lost once since Wimbledon. If Serena opens this year the way she ended last year, she'll be very tough to beat.
But if there's anyone who can beat her, it's probably Victoria Azarenka. Azarenka won her first Grand Slam title here last year, then held down the No. 1 ranking for most of the year. She won Olympic bronze in London, and almost won her second Slam of the year at the U.S. Open, giving Serena all she could handle and then some in the final. Vika and Serena are on track for a semifinal meeting, but, as much as I like Azarenka's chances, I'm not certain that matchup's a guarantee. Former No. 1 Caroline Wozniacki should've won this tournament two years ago. She's still looking for that first Grand Slam title and has the game to pull off the mild upset of Azarenka in the quarters.
Sharapova's path to the final is much clearer. She's the class of the field in the bottom half of the draw. A phenomenal matchup against Venus Williams awaits her in the third round, but at this point in their careers, Sharapova should be able to handle Venus. Former champ Li Na and Aussie favorite Sam Stosur are also in the bottom half of the draw, but if Sharapova's on her game, neither one should be a threat. Fourth-seeded Aggie Radwanska and fifth-seeded Angelique Kerber are both capable of deep runs, but I don't think either one's a contender for the title. The only other name to watch out for in the bottom half of the women's draw is Ana Ivanovic, a former finalist here and former French Open champion. Last year, she showed signs that her game has finally returned. If that's indeed the case and she continues to play the way she did when she was No. 1 in the world, Ivanovic could be an outside contender.
My four women's semifinalists are Wozniacki, Serena, Ivanovic and Sharapova (that's a good-looking bunch of semifinalists!). If Wozniacki and Ivanovic get there, it would be impressive runs. But Serena and Maria would easily win those two matchups. They're the two best players in the women's game right now. Should they both get there, it would be an incredible final. But I remember the Serena Williams that dominated the women's game. Serena's close to that level again. If she keeps it up for two weeks, she goes for her second "Serena Slam" in Paris.
Friday, January 11, 2013
NFL Divisional Playoff Picks
I've always thought the Divisional Playoffs were the best weekend of football out there. The eight best teams, all of whom are two wins away from the Super Bowl. We've got seven of the eight division champions playing this week. The only division that's out? The NFC East. Did anybody see that coming? The only division with two teams left? The NFC West. The same division that two years ago was being ridiculed as the "worst division in NFL history." Oh, how times have changed.
We've also got three regular season rematches, two of which were December games. That should make things even more interesting. After a Wild Card Weekend that proved to be rather uneventful and incredibly disappointing, I've got a feeling we're in store for some good ones this week. Of the eight teams playing, I think five have a legitimate chance to not just get to the Super Bowl, but to win it.
AFC
#4 Ravens (11-6) at #1 Broncos (13-3): Denver-I've gotta admit, a small part of me wanted Indy to win last week just so that I could have the sheer joy of watching Peyton Manning crush the Colts in the playoffs. But I'll take one final chance to see Ray Lewis in action. Who would've thought when Peyton went to Denver that they'd be the odds-on favorites to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl in Year I? Well, that's exactly what the Broncos are, as they enter the playoffs with an 11-game winning streak and the AFC's top seed.
I'll be the first to admit that the teams the Broncos played during their winning streak weren't exactly the cream of the crop of the NFL. With one exception. In Week 15, they went into Baltimore and crushed the Ravens, 34-17. That was all the statement you needed about the Denver Broncos. A week off, the home crowd and Peyton Manning will only help them against the Ravens. Baltimore was impressive last week, but Peyton's current team is NOT Peyton's former team. The Broncos are better than the Colts in every respect. The offense gets better every week, and that solid defense is incredibly underrated.
With all that being said, I don't anticipate this game being the Denver cakewalk so many experts are predicting. The Ravens are playoff-tested, and they've got the extra motivation to extend Ray Lewis' career, even if it's just for another week. However, Baltimore simply doesn't have enough weapons to knock off the Broncos. For everything that's been said/written about his career postseason record, Peyton has beaten the Ravens in the playoffs twice before. He knows how to pick apart that defense as well as anybody. The AFC Championship Game's going to be in Denver. As for this week, 30-17 Broncos.
#3 Texans (13-4) at #2 Patriots (12-4): New England-That Monday night game four weeks ago was a statement game in more than one respect. The Texans came in flying high, with the No. 1 seed all but guaranteed. Then they went into Foxboro and got their butts kicked all over the field. 42-14 later we knew which one was the better team. As a result, the Patriots leapfrogged the Texans in the standings, got the bye, and ended up as the home team in the playoff rematch.
Houston made a statement of its own last week against Cincinnati, though. The Texans came into the playoffs reeling, but it sure didn't like it. They controlled the game from the start, never letting the Bengals get into it. The 19-13 score made the game look closer than it actually was. All the flaws that the Patriots exposed a month ago still exist, though. Making matters worse, they're playing the Patriots in Foxboro in January. Had the Texans won the regular season meeting and this game was in Houston, I'd like their chances a little better. But beating Bradicheck in New England in the playoffs is a tall order. The Texans should be up for the challenge, but that might not be enough. They'll need to play the perfect game to beat them. Problem is, Tom Brady probably won't let that happen.
I don't think it's possible for the Texans to be as bad this week as they were the last time they traveled to New England. But that doesn't mean the result will be any different. We've got another Manning vs. Brady AFC Championship Game in store. The Patriots move within a win of getting back to the Super Bowl, 27-14.
NFC
#5 Seahawks ("12-5") at #1 Falcons (13-3): Atlanta-Why is everyone so down on the Falcons? They might be the least-heralded No. 1 seed in NFL playoff history. Everybody thinks they're going to lose. I don't understand why. Atlanta went 10-0 in non-division games this season, and there aren't anymore NFC South teams left. Besides, they're out to prove why they earned the No. 1 seed. Most importantly, they don't want what's happened to them in the playoffs the last two years (home loss to the Packers, embarrassed by the Giants) to happen to them again this season. If it's possible for the team with the best record in football to be underrated, the Falcons might be.
As for the Seahawks, I don't get the buzz about them either. Seattle's a very good team. What they did in Washington last week, coming back from 14-0 down to win 24-14, proved it. They were the only road team to win last weekend. But that doesn't mean they're going to roll all over the Falcons, like so many people are saying they will. I don't know if it's overhyping the Seahawks or underestimating the Falcons or a combination of both, but I simply don't see it. They don't just have to fly cross-country again (for the second straight week). They're taking on a dynamic Atlanta offense that's built for a fast track in a dome. More importantly, the Falcons are a better team than the Seahawks. People seem to be conveniently forgetting that.
The last time the Falcons were the No. 1 seed, they ran into a buzzsaw and lost at home in the Divisional Playoffs. They're out to make amends for that performance. And while the Seahawks are on a roll, they're not the 2011 Packers. Seattle's not the same team on the road as they are at home, and I'd be curious to see how different last week's game would've been had the Seahawks been going against a healthy Robert Griffin III. As far as I know, there are no such concerns like that about Matt Ryan. Atlanta wins, 27-23.
#3 Packers ("12-5") at #2 49ers (11-4-1): San Francisco-Without question, this is the game of the week. That's why they put it on Saturday night. The winner here will be the favorite in the NFC Championship Game, regardless of the opponent. Every prediction I've seen has the Packers going to the Super Bowl. They'd be wise to hold off on those picks, though. Because the 49ers and Packers are about as evenly-matched as any two playoff teams can be.
Green Bay was perhaps the most dominant of the four winners last week, which is no surprise. Two years ago, the Packers got everyone healthy just in time for the playoffs, and we all remember what happened. Well, call this a little dose of deja vu, because it looks like the same thing might be happening in Green Bay this season. But last year, after a 15-1 regular season, they ended up with a tough matchup against the Giants in the playoffs, and they ended up on the short end. This 49ers team reminds me a lot of last year's Giants. I don't know if people are down on San Francisco because they think Green Bay's better or the 49ers are just underrated, but that defense is Super Bowl-caliber, and Colin Kaepernick adds so many more dimensions to a dynamic, exciting offense. This is going to be a phenomenal game.
This was the marquee matchup of Week 1, when the 49ers upset the Packers at Lambeau. That set the tone for San Francisco's season, while also setting up the playoff rematch for the Bay Area instead of the Frozen Tundra. That's not a small thing. In frigid Green Bay, this would be a completely different game. But being in San Francisco levels the playing field. This one's so close. Almost too close to call. It's going to come down to the small things. Who can make the big plays and limit turnovers? Call me crazy, but I've got a hunch it's going to be the 49ers. 24-21 San Francisco.
Last Week: 2-2
Playoffs: 2-2
Season: 172-87-1
We've also got three regular season rematches, two of which were December games. That should make things even more interesting. After a Wild Card Weekend that proved to be rather uneventful and incredibly disappointing, I've got a feeling we're in store for some good ones this week. Of the eight teams playing, I think five have a legitimate chance to not just get to the Super Bowl, but to win it.
AFC
#4 Ravens (11-6) at #1 Broncos (13-3): Denver-I've gotta admit, a small part of me wanted Indy to win last week just so that I could have the sheer joy of watching Peyton Manning crush the Colts in the playoffs. But I'll take one final chance to see Ray Lewis in action. Who would've thought when Peyton went to Denver that they'd be the odds-on favorites to represent the AFC in the Super Bowl in Year I? Well, that's exactly what the Broncos are, as they enter the playoffs with an 11-game winning streak and the AFC's top seed.
I'll be the first to admit that the teams the Broncos played during their winning streak weren't exactly the cream of the crop of the NFL. With one exception. In Week 15, they went into Baltimore and crushed the Ravens, 34-17. That was all the statement you needed about the Denver Broncos. A week off, the home crowd and Peyton Manning will only help them against the Ravens. Baltimore was impressive last week, but Peyton's current team is NOT Peyton's former team. The Broncos are better than the Colts in every respect. The offense gets better every week, and that solid defense is incredibly underrated.
With all that being said, I don't anticipate this game being the Denver cakewalk so many experts are predicting. The Ravens are playoff-tested, and they've got the extra motivation to extend Ray Lewis' career, even if it's just for another week. However, Baltimore simply doesn't have enough weapons to knock off the Broncos. For everything that's been said/written about his career postseason record, Peyton has beaten the Ravens in the playoffs twice before. He knows how to pick apart that defense as well as anybody. The AFC Championship Game's going to be in Denver. As for this week, 30-17 Broncos.
#3 Texans (13-4) at #2 Patriots (12-4): New England-That Monday night game four weeks ago was a statement game in more than one respect. The Texans came in flying high, with the No. 1 seed all but guaranteed. Then they went into Foxboro and got their butts kicked all over the field. 42-14 later we knew which one was the better team. As a result, the Patriots leapfrogged the Texans in the standings, got the bye, and ended up as the home team in the playoff rematch.
Houston made a statement of its own last week against Cincinnati, though. The Texans came into the playoffs reeling, but it sure didn't like it. They controlled the game from the start, never letting the Bengals get into it. The 19-13 score made the game look closer than it actually was. All the flaws that the Patriots exposed a month ago still exist, though. Making matters worse, they're playing the Patriots in Foxboro in January. Had the Texans won the regular season meeting and this game was in Houston, I'd like their chances a little better. But beating Bradicheck in New England in the playoffs is a tall order. The Texans should be up for the challenge, but that might not be enough. They'll need to play the perfect game to beat them. Problem is, Tom Brady probably won't let that happen.
I don't think it's possible for the Texans to be as bad this week as they were the last time they traveled to New England. But that doesn't mean the result will be any different. We've got another Manning vs. Brady AFC Championship Game in store. The Patriots move within a win of getting back to the Super Bowl, 27-14.
NFC
#5 Seahawks ("12-5") at #1 Falcons (13-3): Atlanta-Why is everyone so down on the Falcons? They might be the least-heralded No. 1 seed in NFL playoff history. Everybody thinks they're going to lose. I don't understand why. Atlanta went 10-0 in non-division games this season, and there aren't anymore NFC South teams left. Besides, they're out to prove why they earned the No. 1 seed. Most importantly, they don't want what's happened to them in the playoffs the last two years (home loss to the Packers, embarrassed by the Giants) to happen to them again this season. If it's possible for the team with the best record in football to be underrated, the Falcons might be.
As for the Seahawks, I don't get the buzz about them either. Seattle's a very good team. What they did in Washington last week, coming back from 14-0 down to win 24-14, proved it. They were the only road team to win last weekend. But that doesn't mean they're going to roll all over the Falcons, like so many people are saying they will. I don't know if it's overhyping the Seahawks or underestimating the Falcons or a combination of both, but I simply don't see it. They don't just have to fly cross-country again (for the second straight week). They're taking on a dynamic Atlanta offense that's built for a fast track in a dome. More importantly, the Falcons are a better team than the Seahawks. People seem to be conveniently forgetting that.
The last time the Falcons were the No. 1 seed, they ran into a buzzsaw and lost at home in the Divisional Playoffs. They're out to make amends for that performance. And while the Seahawks are on a roll, they're not the 2011 Packers. Seattle's not the same team on the road as they are at home, and I'd be curious to see how different last week's game would've been had the Seahawks been going against a healthy Robert Griffin III. As far as I know, there are no such concerns like that about Matt Ryan. Atlanta wins, 27-23.
#3 Packers ("12-5") at #2 49ers (11-4-1): San Francisco-Without question, this is the game of the week. That's why they put it on Saturday night. The winner here will be the favorite in the NFC Championship Game, regardless of the opponent. Every prediction I've seen has the Packers going to the Super Bowl. They'd be wise to hold off on those picks, though. Because the 49ers and Packers are about as evenly-matched as any two playoff teams can be.
Green Bay was perhaps the most dominant of the four winners last week, which is no surprise. Two years ago, the Packers got everyone healthy just in time for the playoffs, and we all remember what happened. Well, call this a little dose of deja vu, because it looks like the same thing might be happening in Green Bay this season. But last year, after a 15-1 regular season, they ended up with a tough matchup against the Giants in the playoffs, and they ended up on the short end. This 49ers team reminds me a lot of last year's Giants. I don't know if people are down on San Francisco because they think Green Bay's better or the 49ers are just underrated, but that defense is Super Bowl-caliber, and Colin Kaepernick adds so many more dimensions to a dynamic, exciting offense. This is going to be a phenomenal game.
This was the marquee matchup of Week 1, when the 49ers upset the Packers at Lambeau. That set the tone for San Francisco's season, while also setting up the playoff rematch for the Bay Area instead of the Frozen Tundra. That's not a small thing. In frigid Green Bay, this would be a completely different game. But being in San Francisco levels the playing field. This one's so close. Almost too close to call. It's going to come down to the small things. Who can make the big plays and limit turnovers? Call me crazy, but I've got a hunch it's going to be the 49ers. 24-21 San Francisco.
Last Week: 2-2
Playoffs: 2-2
Season: 172-87-1
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Here Are My 10
It's time for my annual post revealing who I'd vote for for the Baseball Hall of Fame prior to the announcement of who actually got in. It's no secret that voting this year is harder than ever before. The ballot is so loaded that even with the 10-vote maximum, there are worthy candidates who'd otherwise be sure-fire selections being left off by every writer that has a vote. And, of course, the majority of these players were stars during the Steroid Era, which is only going to complicate matters further. It's a safe bet that a lot, if not all, of them aren't going to get in.
In fact, if I were to join the Baseball Writers Association of America today, I'd be eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame in 2023. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will probably still be on the ballot then, and I wouldn't hesitate for a second to write their names down. And the fact that they still won't have plaques in Cooperstown (as well as the likes of Mark McGwire, among others) by then is a complete travesty, and it speaks to the problem with the voting process. Too many of the writers who have the honor of voting for the Hall of Fame have a "holier than thou" mentality and decide that they get to play prosecutor, judge and jury for any guy they even suspect used performance-enhancing drugs, keeping otherwise worthy players out and clogging up the ballot for years to come. (In fairness, not all of the voters are like this. My friend Jim Henneman is one Hall of Fame voter who takes that responsiblity very seriously and treats it as such.)
My stance on the Steroid Era is well-known. Whether or not they did whatever doesn't change the fact that they were the most dominant players of the late 1990s-early 2000s. If you saw Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens play, can you honestly say they weren't far and away the best players of their era? If the Hall of Fame is supposed to be a museum honoring baseball's history, how can you justify keeping the all-time home run king and one of the most intimidating right-handed pitchers in history out? I can't. And the "character clause" is a weak argument. Ty Cobb was one of the biggest racists the sports world has ever known, and he was the first person ever elected to the Hall of Fame.
With all that in mind, here are the 10 players I would've voted for this year if I had a vote. Filling teh 10 spots was tough. Not because I couldn't think of 10 worthy guys. Because I easily could've put down 15 names. But these are the 10 I settled on, mainly because I think they were the 10 best, most dominant players on the ballot. (I ranked them in order, but since the Hall of Fame has no ranking system, every vote counts the same.)
1. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants)-I don't care about whether or not he knowingly used steroids. All I know is that he hit more home runs than anyone in the history of the game, and he was such a feared hitter that, for a time, he would see a grand total of about three hittable pitches a game. It's no surprise, then, that he's the all-time leader in both walks and intentional walks (he was once intentionally walked with the bases loaded). Sure, he had a poor relationship with the media and the steroid cloud will always be the elephant in the room regarding Barry Bonds, but that's not a reason to keep him out of the Hall of Fame. He's the only seven-time MVP in history, and he would've been a Hall of Famer had he never played a single game in a Giants uniform. Barry Bonds was the best player in baseball for an extended period of time. If that's not a Hall of Famer, what is?
2. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees)-Everything I just said about Barry Bonds also applies to Roger Clemens. If you're my age or younger, answer this question: Was Roger Clemens NOT the best right-handed pitcher you've ever seen? Hell, there are some people a lot older than me who'd answer "Yes" to that question. 354 wins, 4,672 strikeouts, seven Cy Young Awards, one MVP, 11 All-Star teams. Clemens was just as dominant in his early 40s as he was in his 20s, whether or not he was "enhanced" (keep in mind, he was found not guilty in federal court), you have to acknowledge he was a freak. And again, he would've been a first-ballot Hall of Famer based on his Red Sox career alone. Roger Clemens was a rare talent that we'll never see again. Again, if there's not a place for the greatest right-handed pitcher many of us will ever see in the Hall of Fame, what's the point of having a Hall of Fame then?
3. Mike Piazza, Catcher (1992-98 Dodgers, 1998 Marlins, 1998-2005 Mets, 2006 Padres, 2007 Athletics)-I'll be honest. During his playing career, I never liked Mike Piazza. I still don't. But that doesn't mean I can't be objective about him when it comes to his (obvious) Hall of Fame credentials. And it doesn't change the fact he was the greatest hitting catcher in history. He hit more home runs as a catcher than anyone else and has a career batting average over .300. And let's not forget that he was at the center of some of the biggest moments in New York Mets history. On the short-list of greatest catchers of all-time (Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, Gary Carter, Carlton Fisk), Mike Piazza should be right there in the discussion. Steroid suspisions, which make no sense to me, will probably keep him out (at least for now), but Mike Piazza should be an easy vote. As much as it pains me to say it, he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
4. Sammy Sosa, Outfielder (1989 Rangers, 1989-91 White Sox, 1992-2004 Cubs, 2005 Orioles, 2007 Rangers)-I'm aware of the fact that Sammy Sosa isn't going to come anywhere near Hall of Fame election. Not this year. Not ever. We've seen the vote totals for his partner in the great 1998 home run race, and we all know that Sosa's going to get roughly the same support as McGwire. And we all know the reason why. But if they weren't breaking baseball's rules at the time (which they weren't), I don't view their home run numbers as "tainted" one bit. With that in mind, it's impossible to ignore 609 career home runs, the fifth-most in history, or the three 60 home run seasons, which is one fewer than all other players in Major League history combined.
5. Jack Morris, Pitcher (1977-90 Tigers, 1991 Twins, 1992-93 Blue Jays, 1994 Indians)-The first holdover candidate I'd put down is Jack Morris. I've always been a Jack Morris supporter, and I always will be. I'm still waiting for somebody to convince me that he's NOT a Hall of Famer. Jack Morris was the winningest pitcher of the 1980s and the definition of an "ace." The big black mark against him is a career ERA of 3.90, but that ERA doesn't do him justice, and, if that's the reason he's being kept out, it's a complete shame. Morris was old school. He liked to finish what he started, and, in addition to having more wins and starts than any other pitcher in the 1980s, he also had the most innings pitched in the decade. And, I know I always bring it up, but...Game 7, 1991 World Series. Morris got his most support ever last year and is the leading vote-getter among returning candidates. Do the steroid guys help or hurt him? I wouldn't be surprised if this is finally the year, but, sadly, I don't think it will be.
6. Mark McGwire, 1st Baseman (1986-97 Athletics, 1997-2001 Cardinals)-Mark McGwire won't get in. I know that. He knows that. But if I'm keeping my vote consistent, I write his name down again. He's no different than any of the other Steroid Era sluggers I'd vote for. The only difference with McGwire is that he's admitted it, which will either help his vote total or drop him down even further. Sure, he was a one-trick pony. And sure he was "helped" along in the process, likely for his entire career. But 583 home runs. I can't overlook that.
7. Jeff Bagwell, 1st Baseman (1991-2005 Astros)-I considered moving Bagwell up in my rankings, but I had him fifth last year and only Barry Larkin got in, so I couldn't move him up that far. And where he ended up was intentional (you'll see why in a second). Bagwell finished third last year with 56 percent of the vote. I don't know why he hasn't gotten more support. Some writers have a completely unfounded assumption that he must've used something simply because he played in the 90s. That's the problem with the voting process right now. Stuff that some people suspect Jeff Bagwell might've done, but can't be proven, is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. Or, maybe they were just waiting for...
8. Craig Biggio, 2nd Baseman (Astros 1998-2007)-It would be really cool if Bagwell and Biggio went in together, like Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine will next year. They're the two greatest players in Houston Astros history, but Biggio was so much more than that. He was also their heart-and-soul. He left it all out on the field, just look at the constantly-dirty uniform for proof. Biggio's numbers are comparable with all of the second basemen already in the Hall of Fame, and all 3,060 of his hits came in an Astros uniform. He's also the all-time Major League leader for getting hit by a pitch, which he did 285 times. And let's not forget the three position changes and the solid defense he played at three of the most difficult, most important positions on the field (catcher, second base and center field). Best of all, not even a thought of steroids. He's not going to be stuck languishing on the ballot year after year. In fact, Biggio seems like the most likely guy to get elected this year.
9. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2001-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox)-I spent more time thinking about Curt Schilling than anybody on this list before ultimately deciding I would vote for him. So what ultimately swayed me? His three World championships, 11-2 career postseason record, 5-0 record in postseason clinching games, and .846 postseason winning percentage. Schilling was the Phillies' ace for nearly a decade, then was half of dominant 1-2 combinations for championship teams in Arizona and Boston (along with fellow future Hall of Famers Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez). Sure, the only major awards he ever was were 1993 NLCS MVP and 2001 World Series Co-MVP, but so what? Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young Award either.
10. Edgar Martinez, Designated Hitter (1987-2004 Mariners)-My last vote goes to another holdover--Edgar Martinez. Edgar's not going to get in, because for some reason DHing is considered a stigma. Guess what. It's a position! And Edgar Martinez was the best one ever. It's not his fault his knees prevented him from playing the field. Looking at his hitting stats blindly, you'd see a .312 career average and a ridiculous 514 doubles and assume he was already in. It's not going to happen, obviously, but hopefully Edgar Martinez gets enough votes to stay on the ballot.
So there you have it. That was tough. How tough? These are the guys that I had on my list last year, but simply didn't have room for on this year's ballot: Tim Raines, Larry Walker, Bernie Williams, Lee Smith, Don Mattingly. And that's not even mentioning Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Rafael Palmeiro and David Wells, who I'd otherwise have given a long look to, but had to simply pass over entirely on this incredibly deep ballot.
Then there's 2014, when Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina join the fun to make voting even harder. For once, I don't envy the Baseball Hall of Fame voters. And keeping the "steroid guys" out just because isn't making the process any easier.
In fact, if I were to join the Baseball Writers Association of America today, I'd be eligible to vote for the Hall of Fame in 2023. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will probably still be on the ballot then, and I wouldn't hesitate for a second to write their names down. And the fact that they still won't have plaques in Cooperstown (as well as the likes of Mark McGwire, among others) by then is a complete travesty, and it speaks to the problem with the voting process. Too many of the writers who have the honor of voting for the Hall of Fame have a "holier than thou" mentality and decide that they get to play prosecutor, judge and jury for any guy they even suspect used performance-enhancing drugs, keeping otherwise worthy players out and clogging up the ballot for years to come. (In fairness, not all of the voters are like this. My friend Jim Henneman is one Hall of Fame voter who takes that responsiblity very seriously and treats it as such.)
My stance on the Steroid Era is well-known. Whether or not they did whatever doesn't change the fact that they were the most dominant players of the late 1990s-early 2000s. If you saw Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens play, can you honestly say they weren't far and away the best players of their era? If the Hall of Fame is supposed to be a museum honoring baseball's history, how can you justify keeping the all-time home run king and one of the most intimidating right-handed pitchers in history out? I can't. And the "character clause" is a weak argument. Ty Cobb was one of the biggest racists the sports world has ever known, and he was the first person ever elected to the Hall of Fame.
With all that in mind, here are the 10 players I would've voted for this year if I had a vote. Filling teh 10 spots was tough. Not because I couldn't think of 10 worthy guys. Because I easily could've put down 15 names. But these are the 10 I settled on, mainly because I think they were the 10 best, most dominant players on the ballot. (I ranked them in order, but since the Hall of Fame has no ranking system, every vote counts the same.)
1. Barry Bonds, Outfielder (1986-92 Pirates, 1993-2007 Giants)-I don't care about whether or not he knowingly used steroids. All I know is that he hit more home runs than anyone in the history of the game, and he was such a feared hitter that, for a time, he would see a grand total of about three hittable pitches a game. It's no surprise, then, that he's the all-time leader in both walks and intentional walks (he was once intentionally walked with the bases loaded). Sure, he had a poor relationship with the media and the steroid cloud will always be the elephant in the room regarding Barry Bonds, but that's not a reason to keep him out of the Hall of Fame. He's the only seven-time MVP in history, and he would've been a Hall of Famer had he never played a single game in a Giants uniform. Barry Bonds was the best player in baseball for an extended period of time. If that's not a Hall of Famer, what is?
2. Roger Clemens, Pitcher (1984-96 Red Sox, 1997-98 Blue Jays, 1999-2003 Yankees, 2004-06 Astros, 2007 Yankees)-Everything I just said about Barry Bonds also applies to Roger Clemens. If you're my age or younger, answer this question: Was Roger Clemens NOT the best right-handed pitcher you've ever seen? Hell, there are some people a lot older than me who'd answer "Yes" to that question. 354 wins, 4,672 strikeouts, seven Cy Young Awards, one MVP, 11 All-Star teams. Clemens was just as dominant in his early 40s as he was in his 20s, whether or not he was "enhanced" (keep in mind, he was found not guilty in federal court), you have to acknowledge he was a freak. And again, he would've been a first-ballot Hall of Famer based on his Red Sox career alone. Roger Clemens was a rare talent that we'll never see again. Again, if there's not a place for the greatest right-handed pitcher many of us will ever see in the Hall of Fame, what's the point of having a Hall of Fame then?
3. Mike Piazza, Catcher (1992-98 Dodgers, 1998 Marlins, 1998-2005 Mets, 2006 Padres, 2007 Athletics)-I'll be honest. During his playing career, I never liked Mike Piazza. I still don't. But that doesn't mean I can't be objective about him when it comes to his (obvious) Hall of Fame credentials. And it doesn't change the fact he was the greatest hitting catcher in history. He hit more home runs as a catcher than anyone else and has a career batting average over .300. And let's not forget that he was at the center of some of the biggest moments in New York Mets history. On the short-list of greatest catchers of all-time (Johnny Bench, Yogi Berra, Gary Carter, Carlton Fisk), Mike Piazza should be right there in the discussion. Steroid suspisions, which make no sense to me, will probably keep him out (at least for now), but Mike Piazza should be an easy vote. As much as it pains me to say it, he belongs in the Hall of Fame.
4. Sammy Sosa, Outfielder (1989 Rangers, 1989-91 White Sox, 1992-2004 Cubs, 2005 Orioles, 2007 Rangers)-I'm aware of the fact that Sammy Sosa isn't going to come anywhere near Hall of Fame election. Not this year. Not ever. We've seen the vote totals for his partner in the great 1998 home run race, and we all know that Sosa's going to get roughly the same support as McGwire. And we all know the reason why. But if they weren't breaking baseball's rules at the time (which they weren't), I don't view their home run numbers as "tainted" one bit. With that in mind, it's impossible to ignore 609 career home runs, the fifth-most in history, or the three 60 home run seasons, which is one fewer than all other players in Major League history combined.
5. Jack Morris, Pitcher (1977-90 Tigers, 1991 Twins, 1992-93 Blue Jays, 1994 Indians)-The first holdover candidate I'd put down is Jack Morris. I've always been a Jack Morris supporter, and I always will be. I'm still waiting for somebody to convince me that he's NOT a Hall of Famer. Jack Morris was the winningest pitcher of the 1980s and the definition of an "ace." The big black mark against him is a career ERA of 3.90, but that ERA doesn't do him justice, and, if that's the reason he's being kept out, it's a complete shame. Morris was old school. He liked to finish what he started, and, in addition to having more wins and starts than any other pitcher in the 1980s, he also had the most innings pitched in the decade. And, I know I always bring it up, but...Game 7, 1991 World Series. Morris got his most support ever last year and is the leading vote-getter among returning candidates. Do the steroid guys help or hurt him? I wouldn't be surprised if this is finally the year, but, sadly, I don't think it will be.
6. Mark McGwire, 1st Baseman (1986-97 Athletics, 1997-2001 Cardinals)-Mark McGwire won't get in. I know that. He knows that. But if I'm keeping my vote consistent, I write his name down again. He's no different than any of the other Steroid Era sluggers I'd vote for. The only difference with McGwire is that he's admitted it, which will either help his vote total or drop him down even further. Sure, he was a one-trick pony. And sure he was "helped" along in the process, likely for his entire career. But 583 home runs. I can't overlook that.
7. Jeff Bagwell, 1st Baseman (1991-2005 Astros)-I considered moving Bagwell up in my rankings, but I had him fifth last year and only Barry Larkin got in, so I couldn't move him up that far. And where he ended up was intentional (you'll see why in a second). Bagwell finished third last year with 56 percent of the vote. I don't know why he hasn't gotten more support. Some writers have a completely unfounded assumption that he must've used something simply because he played in the 90s. That's the problem with the voting process right now. Stuff that some people suspect Jeff Bagwell might've done, but can't be proven, is keeping him out of the Hall of Fame. Or, maybe they were just waiting for...
8. Craig Biggio, 2nd Baseman (Astros 1998-2007)-It would be really cool if Bagwell and Biggio went in together, like Greg Maddux and Tom Glavine will next year. They're the two greatest players in Houston Astros history, but Biggio was so much more than that. He was also their heart-and-soul. He left it all out on the field, just look at the constantly-dirty uniform for proof. Biggio's numbers are comparable with all of the second basemen already in the Hall of Fame, and all 3,060 of his hits came in an Astros uniform. He's also the all-time Major League leader for getting hit by a pitch, which he did 285 times. And let's not forget the three position changes and the solid defense he played at three of the most difficult, most important positions on the field (catcher, second base and center field). Best of all, not even a thought of steroids. He's not going to be stuck languishing on the ballot year after year. In fact, Biggio seems like the most likely guy to get elected this year.
9. Curt Schilling, Pitcher (1988-90 Orioles, 1991 Astros, 1992-2000 Phillies, 2001-03 Diamondbacks, 2004-07 Red Sox)-I spent more time thinking about Curt Schilling than anybody on this list before ultimately deciding I would vote for him. So what ultimately swayed me? His three World championships, 11-2 career postseason record, 5-0 record in postseason clinching games, and .846 postseason winning percentage. Schilling was the Phillies' ace for nearly a decade, then was half of dominant 1-2 combinations for championship teams in Arizona and Boston (along with fellow future Hall of Famers Randy Johnson and Pedro Martinez). Sure, the only major awards he ever was were 1993 NLCS MVP and 2001 World Series Co-MVP, but so what? Nolan Ryan never won a Cy Young Award either.
10. Edgar Martinez, Designated Hitter (1987-2004 Mariners)-My last vote goes to another holdover--Edgar Martinez. Edgar's not going to get in, because for some reason DHing is considered a stigma. Guess what. It's a position! And Edgar Martinez was the best one ever. It's not his fault his knees prevented him from playing the field. Looking at his hitting stats blindly, you'd see a .312 career average and a ridiculous 514 doubles and assume he was already in. It's not going to happen, obviously, but hopefully Edgar Martinez gets enough votes to stay on the ballot.
So there you have it. That was tough. How tough? These are the guys that I had on my list last year, but simply didn't have room for on this year's ballot: Tim Raines, Larry Walker, Bernie Williams, Lee Smith, Don Mattingly. And that's not even mentioning Alan Trammell, Fred McGriff, Rafael Palmeiro and David Wells, who I'd otherwise have given a long look to, but had to simply pass over entirely on this incredibly deep ballot.
Then there's 2014, when Greg Maddux, Tom Glavine, Frank Thomas and Mike Mussina join the fun to make voting even harder. For once, I don't envy the Baseball Hall of Fame voters. And keeping the "steroid guys" out just because isn't making the process any easier.
Monday, January 7, 2013
We Have Hockey!
After three long, contentious months of a ridiculous, unnecessary work stoppage "NHL" no longer stands for "Not Hockey, Lockout." Hockey's back! Finally! Who's to blame for Lockout 2.0 (the owners) is irrevelant. So is the fact that it should've been over months ago. The bottom line is that both sides came to their senses and realized they had to get it done before another season was lost in time. If they hadn't, they might as well have not even come back at all. Even in the warped world that is NHL logic, rational thought actually prevailed. If you think about it, that's an amazing thing in and of itself.
Ultimately, I think the fans will come back. After all, what else do Canadians have to do in the winter? It'll take some time, but they came back last time. And the NBA's fans came back in record numbers after their lockout last year. Looking at the NFL's attendance numbers, you'd never even know they had a lockout. Besides, the NHL was going much too strong before the lockout started and, as we all know, absence only makes the heart grow fonder. The condensed schedule might actually help, too. It sure did with the NBA last season.
But first, the NHL has a whole lot of mending to do. The owners need to realize that they can't patronize the fans by sugar-coating the lockout as a "good" thing. Last time, they were able to work back into the public's good graces with dynamic young players and exciting rules changes that made the product better. They don't have that this time. The Winter Classic was created in the wake of the 2004-05 lockout, and it quickly became the NHL's marquee event. Except this year, the Winter Classic was a casualty of Lockout 2.0. So was the All-Star Game. Cancelling your two biggest and most popular events doesn't exactly help you on the public relations front. Especially when the reason for their cancellation is pure greed.
The owners also need to get out of their ridiculous "lockout first, negotiate later" strategy every time the CBA expires. Lockouts should be a last resort, not a first option. How can they expect to build any sort of public trust when the expectation has now become that there's going to be an NHL lockout every X years? Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me three times? Well, we've gotten to three. Is it worth risking number four in 2020 or 2022 or whenever?
Do the fans a favor and make this be lesson learned. Major League Baseball invented the pro sports work stoppage. Yet they're the only one of the Big Four that hasn't had a lockout in the past two years. After the ill-will created by the cancellation of the 1994 World Series, I'd be surprised if there's ever a work stoppage in baseball again. Hockey needs to get that same message. We all stupidly figured they had after losing the 2004-05 season. Maybe by the time the expiration of this CBA rolls around a decade from now, they'll have figured it out. For the sake of the sport and its continued growth, the NHL needs to stop it with the lockouts.
I have a few suggestions on things the NHL can do for its fans other than cheaper/free tickets and ridiculous apology messages painted on the ice. The first is guaranteeing Olympic participation and reviving the World Cup of Hockey. The owners are hesitant to allow the players to go to the Sochi Olympics, but the players want to go. And it's what the fans want. After taking the game away for three months for no good reason, the owners need to start actually thinking about the fans. If that means shutting the game down for two weeks so that the NHL players can participate in the Olympics, so be it.
It's already been clearly established that the NHL owners can't see the big picture. But even they have to realize the exposure that only the biggest sporting event in the world can bring would only be a good thing for their sport and their league. Hockey's an international sport. And the world's best all play in the NHL. That's why they need to play in the Olympics (which, ultimately, I think they will). And that's also why we need events like the World Cup of Hockey.
Most importantly, the owners need to fire Gary Bettman. There might be only 30 people in the world who don't think he needs to go. Unfortunately, those are the only 30 who have the power to do anything about it. But, if you step back and think about it, the NHL had lost a grand total of zero games due to work stoppages in its long, glorious history until Mr. Lockout showed up. In the 20 years since, there have been three lockouts (that's important to note: each time it was the owners locking out the players), with more than 2,000 games lost, including the entire 2004-05 season.
Bettman's clearly the problem, yet he still has a job! The owners who actually do get it need to take a stand and say enough's enough. The only constants in Mr. Lockout's tenure have been work stoppages, anger and general unrest. So do something about it! That's what Major League Baseball did when they fired Fay Vincent. This whole commissioners hand-picking their successors thing isn't helpful, either, but one thing at a time.
The owners can make long strides towards restoring their credibility by canning Gary Bettman (like they should). And may I suggest a potential replacement? Scot Beckenbaugh, the federal mediator who's a hero to hockey fans everywhere. The voice of reason who got the two sides to put their anger and mistrust aside and hammer out a deal to save the 2012-13 season. The one man who saw through all the crap and knew that getting the players back on the ice was in the best interest of everybody.
If he hadn't been involved, the NHL was destined to go down a path of self-destruction. Instead, Scot Beckenbaugh salvaged the 2012-13 NHL season. He shouldn't be applauded. He deserves so much more. He deserves to be the NHL's commissioner. And the fans deserve him. Because if Lockout 2.0 proved anything, it's that Gary Bettman is in way over his head.
Ultimately, I think the fans will come back. After all, what else do Canadians have to do in the winter? It'll take some time, but they came back last time. And the NBA's fans came back in record numbers after their lockout last year. Looking at the NFL's attendance numbers, you'd never even know they had a lockout. Besides, the NHL was going much too strong before the lockout started and, as we all know, absence only makes the heart grow fonder. The condensed schedule might actually help, too. It sure did with the NBA last season.
But first, the NHL has a whole lot of mending to do. The owners need to realize that they can't patronize the fans by sugar-coating the lockout as a "good" thing. Last time, they were able to work back into the public's good graces with dynamic young players and exciting rules changes that made the product better. They don't have that this time. The Winter Classic was created in the wake of the 2004-05 lockout, and it quickly became the NHL's marquee event. Except this year, the Winter Classic was a casualty of Lockout 2.0. So was the All-Star Game. Cancelling your two biggest and most popular events doesn't exactly help you on the public relations front. Especially when the reason for their cancellation is pure greed.
The owners also need to get out of their ridiculous "lockout first, negotiate later" strategy every time the CBA expires. Lockouts should be a last resort, not a first option. How can they expect to build any sort of public trust when the expectation has now become that there's going to be an NHL lockout every X years? Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you. Fool me three times? Well, we've gotten to three. Is it worth risking number four in 2020 or 2022 or whenever?
Do the fans a favor and make this be lesson learned. Major League Baseball invented the pro sports work stoppage. Yet they're the only one of the Big Four that hasn't had a lockout in the past two years. After the ill-will created by the cancellation of the 1994 World Series, I'd be surprised if there's ever a work stoppage in baseball again. Hockey needs to get that same message. We all stupidly figured they had after losing the 2004-05 season. Maybe by the time the expiration of this CBA rolls around a decade from now, they'll have figured it out. For the sake of the sport and its continued growth, the NHL needs to stop it with the lockouts.
I have a few suggestions on things the NHL can do for its fans other than cheaper/free tickets and ridiculous apology messages painted on the ice. The first is guaranteeing Olympic participation and reviving the World Cup of Hockey. The owners are hesitant to allow the players to go to the Sochi Olympics, but the players want to go. And it's what the fans want. After taking the game away for three months for no good reason, the owners need to start actually thinking about the fans. If that means shutting the game down for two weeks so that the NHL players can participate in the Olympics, so be it.
It's already been clearly established that the NHL owners can't see the big picture. But even they have to realize the exposure that only the biggest sporting event in the world can bring would only be a good thing for their sport and their league. Hockey's an international sport. And the world's best all play in the NHL. That's why they need to play in the Olympics (which, ultimately, I think they will). And that's also why we need events like the World Cup of Hockey.
Most importantly, the owners need to fire Gary Bettman. There might be only 30 people in the world who don't think he needs to go. Unfortunately, those are the only 30 who have the power to do anything about it. But, if you step back and think about it, the NHL had lost a grand total of zero games due to work stoppages in its long, glorious history until Mr. Lockout showed up. In the 20 years since, there have been three lockouts (that's important to note: each time it was the owners locking out the players), with more than 2,000 games lost, including the entire 2004-05 season.
Bettman's clearly the problem, yet he still has a job! The owners who actually do get it need to take a stand and say enough's enough. The only constants in Mr. Lockout's tenure have been work stoppages, anger and general unrest. So do something about it! That's what Major League Baseball did when they fired Fay Vincent. This whole commissioners hand-picking their successors thing isn't helpful, either, but one thing at a time.
The owners can make long strides towards restoring their credibility by canning Gary Bettman (like they should). And may I suggest a potential replacement? Scot Beckenbaugh, the federal mediator who's a hero to hockey fans everywhere. The voice of reason who got the two sides to put their anger and mistrust aside and hammer out a deal to save the 2012-13 season. The one man who saw through all the crap and knew that getting the players back on the ice was in the best interest of everybody.
If he hadn't been involved, the NHL was destined to go down a path of self-destruction. Instead, Scot Beckenbaugh salvaged the 2012-13 NHL season. He shouldn't be applauded. He deserves so much more. He deserves to be the NHL's commissioner. And the fans deserve him. Because if Lockout 2.0 proved anything, it's that Gary Bettman is in way over his head.
Saturday, January 5, 2013
NFL Wild Card Weekend Picks
I can't believe we're already at Wild Card Weekend. Although, if you've watched TV or listened to the radio at all this week, you wouldn't even know it's the playoffs. There's the "controversy" about Rex Ryan being in the Bahamas and his wife's tattoo of Mark Sanchez, as if anybody actually cares, and all the usual coach firings/interviews. I've gotta say I'm shocked that the Andy Reid thing moved so quickly. And I certainly didn't expect him to end up in Kansas City. Another coaching prediction: Lovie Smith (who didn't deserve to get fired) ends up with the Bills.
Now on to the teams actually still playing football. I'm not going to go crazy and make a Super Bowl projection right now, but I do have to say that the four teams I think are most likely to make a run to New Orleans are Denver, New England, San Francisco and Green Bay, with an outside shot to the Washington-Seattle winner. Of course, three of those teams don't play this week. As for those that do...
AFC
#6 Bengals (10-6) at #3 Texans (12-4): Cincinnati-I think it's safe to say that the biggest loser last week (the biggest loser of the last month, actually) was the Texans. Two weeks ago, Houston was sitting pretty. The Texans needed to win just one of their last two games to wrap up home field advantage, and it sure looked like the road to the Super Bowl in the AFC would go through Houston. But after losses to the Vikings and Colts, Houston dropped all the way to the No. 3 seed and, as a result, has to play an extra game and doesn't have a bye week.
A month ago, I would've said the winner of this game would be a no-brainer. I still think that. Only the team that's going to win is Cincinnati. Other than the Broncos, the Bengals might be the hottest team in the entire AFC entering the playoffs. They went 7-1 during the second half of the season, and the only loss was by one-point to Dallas. More impressively, the Bengals have beaten the Steelers and Ravens in the last two weeks. The two AFC North heavyweights have always been the Bengals' biggest obstacle, and wins over both in back-to-back weeks can only help the confidence.
Meanwhile, Houston is reeling. The Texans have lost three out of four to go from AFC favorites to Super Bowl longshots. This is the second time in their history that the Texans have been in the playoffs, and the second time that they're hosting Cincinnati in the wild card round. This year's game will be different than last year's, though. The Bengals will win. 28-20.
#5 Colts (11-5) at #4 Ravens (10-6): Baltimore-Five of the six AFC playoff teams are the same as last year. The only newcomer is the Colts, which is remarkable considering last season's 2-14 record and the complete transformation that franchise went under. Most people thought Andrew Luck would make people forget about Peyton eventually. But I don't think anyone expected it to happen this soon. Chuck Pagano and Bruce Arians should share NFL Coach of the Year honors.
Indy returns to the playoffs for the 12th time in 14 years against the team with the longest active streak of postseason appearances--Baltimore. This is Baltimore's fifth straight season playing in January, but this year has the added element of every game the Ravens play potentially being Ray Lewis' last. (ESPN.com had a poll the other day asking who was the better linebacker, Ray Lewis or Lawrence Taylor. You can't compare them. They played two entirely different positions! Outside linebacker and middle linebacker are not even close to the same.)
I don't read that much into the Ravens' loss last week. They knew they were pretty much locked into the four-seed and knew they couldn't get a bye no matter what, so Baltimore's biggest concern was resting starters for this week. That Ravens defense was reeling towards the end of the regular season, but the starters have been gradually returning from injury, and Lewis will be coming back for the playoffs. That should be enough to give Luck all sorts of problems in his first career playoff game. Baltimore, meanwhile, is battle-tested. The Ravens haven't just made the playoffs every year since 2008, they've won their first game each time. Baltimore has lost its last two postseason games against Indianapolis, but that streak comes to an end. The Ravens win a playoff game for the fifth straight year. 21-13.
NFC
#6 Vikings (10-6) at #3 Packers ("11-5"): Green Bay-Of all the teams playing this weekend, Green Bay is the one best equipped to make a Super Bowl run. The Packers had to play three road games two years ago and that didn't faze them, so the opportunity to play a Saturday night game at Lambeau before potential visits to San Francisco and Atlanta this season certainly won't. (Although, they did lose to Randy Moss in the Vikings at Lambeau in the playoffs in 2004.)
This, of course, is a rematch of last week's game, which Minnesota won to not just get themselves into the playoffs, but also screw over a pair of NFC North rivals. The Packers ended up dropping to the No. 3 seed, and the Bears were knocked out of the playoffs (and cost Lovie Smith his job).
Playoff games between division rivals are always the toughest ones to predict. Especially when they meet in back-to-back weeks. The Packers let Adrian Peterson (shut up please, you're not going to be the MVP) run wild in the two regular season meetings, so you would think they're going to adjust their defensive game plan to focus on him. Should Green Bay find a way to contain Peterson, Minnesota will have to rely on Christian Ponder (in his first playoff game) and the rest of the offense to score enough points to win. I'm not sure they can do that. Green Bay will likely do different things offensively, as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see a heavy dose of running, not just to keep Peterson off the field, but because of how frigid the Frozen Tundra could be on a Saturday night in January. And, if I were a coach or owner, I'd trust Aaron Rodgers to find a way to win me a playoff game more than any quarterback playing this weekend. It won't be as high-scoring as last week's game, and Green Bay should be in control most of the way. The Packers win it 27-17.
#5 Seahawks ("11-5") at #4 Redskins (10-6): Washington-For the sake of the rest of the NFC, Seattle and Washington ended up playing each other. They're the two hottest teams, and they're the two nobody wanted to face. You know the Falcons and 49ers will be on high alert watching this one. The good news is one of them has to lose.
This is Washington's third straight playoff game against Seattle, which, obviously, means the Seahawks won the previous two. But both of those games were in the State of Washington. This one's in Washington, DC, which I think could make a huge difference. The Seahawks have to make the long cross-country trip and deal with those crazy Redskins fans, who haven't had a home playoff game since 1999. You want to tell me those fans weren't a factor in Washington's division-clinching win over Dallas last week? But I think the biggest factor working in the Redskins' favor is the fact that the game's not in Seattle. The Seahawks were the only team in the NFL to go undefeated at home this season, and they're a much different team in Seattle. That's not to say the Seahawks can't win on the road (they had that huge win in Chicago during the season), but they're unbeatable at home.
I can't give either team an advantage because of the experience factor, because we've got two rookie quarterbacks facing each other in a playoff game for the first time in history. This really is the hardest game of the weekend to call. Both teams are so evenly matched that it'll come down to a key play here or a costly turnover there. The Seahawks are favored, but I just have this feeling about the Redskins. The way they're playing right now, it certainly seems like their run's not going to stop after just one playoff game. If the game were in Seattle, my pick would absolutely go the other way, but Washington is the call in a tight one. I'll say 27-21.
Last Week: 11-5
Season: 170-85-1
Now on to the teams actually still playing football. I'm not going to go crazy and make a Super Bowl projection right now, but I do have to say that the four teams I think are most likely to make a run to New Orleans are Denver, New England, San Francisco and Green Bay, with an outside shot to the Washington-Seattle winner. Of course, three of those teams don't play this week. As for those that do...
AFC
#6 Bengals (10-6) at #3 Texans (12-4): Cincinnati-I think it's safe to say that the biggest loser last week (the biggest loser of the last month, actually) was the Texans. Two weeks ago, Houston was sitting pretty. The Texans needed to win just one of their last two games to wrap up home field advantage, and it sure looked like the road to the Super Bowl in the AFC would go through Houston. But after losses to the Vikings and Colts, Houston dropped all the way to the No. 3 seed and, as a result, has to play an extra game and doesn't have a bye week.
A month ago, I would've said the winner of this game would be a no-brainer. I still think that. Only the team that's going to win is Cincinnati. Other than the Broncos, the Bengals might be the hottest team in the entire AFC entering the playoffs. They went 7-1 during the second half of the season, and the only loss was by one-point to Dallas. More impressively, the Bengals have beaten the Steelers and Ravens in the last two weeks. The two AFC North heavyweights have always been the Bengals' biggest obstacle, and wins over both in back-to-back weeks can only help the confidence.
Meanwhile, Houston is reeling. The Texans have lost three out of four to go from AFC favorites to Super Bowl longshots. This is the second time in their history that the Texans have been in the playoffs, and the second time that they're hosting Cincinnati in the wild card round. This year's game will be different than last year's, though. The Bengals will win. 28-20.
#5 Colts (11-5) at #4 Ravens (10-6): Baltimore-Five of the six AFC playoff teams are the same as last year. The only newcomer is the Colts, which is remarkable considering last season's 2-14 record and the complete transformation that franchise went under. Most people thought Andrew Luck would make people forget about Peyton eventually. But I don't think anyone expected it to happen this soon. Chuck Pagano and Bruce Arians should share NFL Coach of the Year honors.
Indy returns to the playoffs for the 12th time in 14 years against the team with the longest active streak of postseason appearances--Baltimore. This is Baltimore's fifth straight season playing in January, but this year has the added element of every game the Ravens play potentially being Ray Lewis' last. (ESPN.com had a poll the other day asking who was the better linebacker, Ray Lewis or Lawrence Taylor. You can't compare them. They played two entirely different positions! Outside linebacker and middle linebacker are not even close to the same.)
I don't read that much into the Ravens' loss last week. They knew they were pretty much locked into the four-seed and knew they couldn't get a bye no matter what, so Baltimore's biggest concern was resting starters for this week. That Ravens defense was reeling towards the end of the regular season, but the starters have been gradually returning from injury, and Lewis will be coming back for the playoffs. That should be enough to give Luck all sorts of problems in his first career playoff game. Baltimore, meanwhile, is battle-tested. The Ravens haven't just made the playoffs every year since 2008, they've won their first game each time. Baltimore has lost its last two postseason games against Indianapolis, but that streak comes to an end. The Ravens win a playoff game for the fifth straight year. 21-13.
NFC
#6 Vikings (10-6) at #3 Packers ("11-5"): Green Bay-Of all the teams playing this weekend, Green Bay is the one best equipped to make a Super Bowl run. The Packers had to play three road games two years ago and that didn't faze them, so the opportunity to play a Saturday night game at Lambeau before potential visits to San Francisco and Atlanta this season certainly won't. (Although, they did lose to Randy Moss in the Vikings at Lambeau in the playoffs in 2004.)
This, of course, is a rematch of last week's game, which Minnesota won to not just get themselves into the playoffs, but also screw over a pair of NFC North rivals. The Packers ended up dropping to the No. 3 seed, and the Bears were knocked out of the playoffs (and cost Lovie Smith his job).
Playoff games between division rivals are always the toughest ones to predict. Especially when they meet in back-to-back weeks. The Packers let Adrian Peterson (shut up please, you're not going to be the MVP) run wild in the two regular season meetings, so you would think they're going to adjust their defensive game plan to focus on him. Should Green Bay find a way to contain Peterson, Minnesota will have to rely on Christian Ponder (in his first playoff game) and the rest of the offense to score enough points to win. I'm not sure they can do that. Green Bay will likely do different things offensively, as well. I wouldn't be surprised to see a heavy dose of running, not just to keep Peterson off the field, but because of how frigid the Frozen Tundra could be on a Saturday night in January. And, if I were a coach or owner, I'd trust Aaron Rodgers to find a way to win me a playoff game more than any quarterback playing this weekend. It won't be as high-scoring as last week's game, and Green Bay should be in control most of the way. The Packers win it 27-17.
#5 Seahawks ("11-5") at #4 Redskins (10-6): Washington-For the sake of the rest of the NFC, Seattle and Washington ended up playing each other. They're the two hottest teams, and they're the two nobody wanted to face. You know the Falcons and 49ers will be on high alert watching this one. The good news is one of them has to lose.
This is Washington's third straight playoff game against Seattle, which, obviously, means the Seahawks won the previous two. But both of those games were in the State of Washington. This one's in Washington, DC, which I think could make a huge difference. The Seahawks have to make the long cross-country trip and deal with those crazy Redskins fans, who haven't had a home playoff game since 1999. You want to tell me those fans weren't a factor in Washington's division-clinching win over Dallas last week? But I think the biggest factor working in the Redskins' favor is the fact that the game's not in Seattle. The Seahawks were the only team in the NFL to go undefeated at home this season, and they're a much different team in Seattle. That's not to say the Seahawks can't win on the road (they had that huge win in Chicago during the season), but they're unbeatable at home.
I can't give either team an advantage because of the experience factor, because we've got two rookie quarterbacks facing each other in a playoff game for the first time in history. This really is the hardest game of the weekend to call. Both teams are so evenly matched that it'll come down to a key play here or a costly turnover there. The Seahawks are favored, but I just have this feeling about the Redskins. The way they're playing right now, it certainly seems like their run's not going to stop after just one playoff game. If the game were in Seattle, my pick would absolutely go the other way, but Washington is the call in a tight one. I'll say 27-21.
Last Week: 11-5
Season: 170-85-1
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
My Ideal Team USA Roster
Now that the calendar has flipped to 2013, it's time to start looking ahead to some of the major international sporting events we have in store. There are World Championships in the Summer Olympic sports, as well as the announcement of the 2020 Olympic host city. There's also 2014 World Cup qualifying, perhaps the biggest and most significant event of them all, which will take place throughout the year. But the one I'm most excited about is the World Baseball Classic, the only international baseball tournament where Major League players represent their native countries.
The WBC has already begun in earnest--four qualifying tournaments were held in September and November--but the real tournament doesn't begin until March. Each of the 16 nations has already announced two players that will be on the roster, with the full squads being unveiled in the coming weeks. Mets third baseman David Wright and Twins catcher Joe Mauer are confirmed members of Team USA, which will be managed by Joe Torre. But who else is going to be on the roster?
Assembling a team of Major League all-stars is never easy. Especially during Spring Training. You've got to put forth the most competitive team possible while also taking into consideration the players' preparations for the six-month season ahead. Then there's the task of making sure the position players get enough at-bats to be ready. And the pitching is the biggest issue. In early March, starters aren't yet ready to go deep into games. That's the main reason why the WBC has a maximum pitch count rule. But it also means you've got to load up on pitchers. Fortunately, teams will only need three starters, with a fourth available.
With that in mind, here's my ideal 28-man roster for Team USA. (Keep in mind, I have no idea how many of these guys will actually want to play, although I did keep Derek Jeter and some others recovering from injuries out.) I'm taking four starting pitchers, eight relievers and 16 position players (two at each position). Since Team USA especially has to work everybody in, and, for the most part, the players are interchangeable, there's no real "starting lineup" aside from the starting pitchers.
Starting Pitchers: Justin Verlander (Tigers), Jered Weaver (Angels), Matt Cain (Giants), David Price (Rays)
Relief Pitchers: Craig Kimbrel (Braves), Jonny Venters (Braves), Marc Rzepczynski (Cardinals), Matt Thornton (White Sox), Joe Nathan (Rangers), Joel Hanrahan (Pirates), David Robertson (Yankees), Jonathan Papelbon (Phillies)
Catchers: *Joe Mauer (Twins), Buster Posey (Giants)
1st Basemen: Prince Fielder (Tigers), Paul Konerko (White Sox)
2nd Basemen: Ian Kinsler (Rangers), Dustin Pedroia (Red Sox)
Shortstops: Troy Tulowitzki (Rockies), Ian Desmond (Nationals)
3rd Basemen: *David Wright (Mets), David Freese (Cardinals)
Outfielders: Matt Kemp (Dodgers), Mike Trout (Angels), Josh Hamilton (Angels), Adam Jones (Orioles), Ryan Braun (Brewers), Jay Bruce (Reds)
Again, the "starting lineup" is a relative term, but here's what one might look like:
Trout-RF, Kinsler-2B, Hamilton-DH, Fielder-1B, Kemp-CF, Wright-3B, Braun-LF, Mauer-C, Tulowitzki-SS
There are, of course, a number of options for Team USA that I didn't include. Regardless of who's on the roster, the American team figures to be one of the strongest in the field. I can't wait to see who's actually going to be on the team. Or for the World Baseball Classic to begin in March.
The WBC has already begun in earnest--four qualifying tournaments were held in September and November--but the real tournament doesn't begin until March. Each of the 16 nations has already announced two players that will be on the roster, with the full squads being unveiled in the coming weeks. Mets third baseman David Wright and Twins catcher Joe Mauer are confirmed members of Team USA, which will be managed by Joe Torre. But who else is going to be on the roster?
Assembling a team of Major League all-stars is never easy. Especially during Spring Training. You've got to put forth the most competitive team possible while also taking into consideration the players' preparations for the six-month season ahead. Then there's the task of making sure the position players get enough at-bats to be ready. And the pitching is the biggest issue. In early March, starters aren't yet ready to go deep into games. That's the main reason why the WBC has a maximum pitch count rule. But it also means you've got to load up on pitchers. Fortunately, teams will only need three starters, with a fourth available.
With that in mind, here's my ideal 28-man roster for Team USA. (Keep in mind, I have no idea how many of these guys will actually want to play, although I did keep Derek Jeter and some others recovering from injuries out.) I'm taking four starting pitchers, eight relievers and 16 position players (two at each position). Since Team USA especially has to work everybody in, and, for the most part, the players are interchangeable, there's no real "starting lineup" aside from the starting pitchers.
Starting Pitchers: Justin Verlander (Tigers), Jered Weaver (Angels), Matt Cain (Giants), David Price (Rays)
Relief Pitchers: Craig Kimbrel (Braves), Jonny Venters (Braves), Marc Rzepczynski (Cardinals), Matt Thornton (White Sox), Joe Nathan (Rangers), Joel Hanrahan (Pirates), David Robertson (Yankees), Jonathan Papelbon (Phillies)
Catchers: *Joe Mauer (Twins), Buster Posey (Giants)
1st Basemen: Prince Fielder (Tigers), Paul Konerko (White Sox)
2nd Basemen: Ian Kinsler (Rangers), Dustin Pedroia (Red Sox)
Shortstops: Troy Tulowitzki (Rockies), Ian Desmond (Nationals)
3rd Basemen: *David Wright (Mets), David Freese (Cardinals)
Outfielders: Matt Kemp (Dodgers), Mike Trout (Angels), Josh Hamilton (Angels), Adam Jones (Orioles), Ryan Braun (Brewers), Jay Bruce (Reds)
Again, the "starting lineup" is a relative term, but here's what one might look like:
Trout-RF, Kinsler-2B, Hamilton-DH, Fielder-1B, Kemp-CF, Wright-3B, Braun-LF, Mauer-C, Tulowitzki-SS
There are, of course, a number of options for Team USA that I didn't include. Regardless of who's on the roster, the American team figures to be one of the strongest in the field. I can't wait to see who's actually going to be on the team. Or for the World Baseball Classic to begin in March.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)