Come Sunday, postseason rosters are locked for contending teams. You need to be on the 40-man roster (or DL) by the end of the day today in order to qualify for the postseason. With that in mind, some teams took the July 31 trade deadline as merely a suggestion. Knowing that they could still make roster changes throughout the month of August, today was really the deadline they were looking at. And I think we can all agree that no team was more successful on the roster enhancement front during the month of August than the Pittsburgh Pirates.
It's been 20 years, but the Pirates are finally going to finish above .500! Everybody knows that, including them. They want more, though. They're in the heart of the NL Central race, and that division is likely going to produce three playoff teams. The Pirates aren't content with breaking the losing-seasons streak. Or even with just making the playoffs. They're going all-out to win the division. And, frankly, who can blame them? They're the best story in baseball.
Perhaps the most impressive part is that all of the Pirates' moves have come in the past few days. Here in New York, the rumors started swirling that somebody had put in a waiver claim for Marlon Byrd. Then came the rumor that it was the Pirates. This the same day the Mets learned Matt Harvey's done for the year and might need Tommy John surgery. A few hours later, it all became official, Marlon Byrd and John Buck to the Pirates. (The best part is that the Mets traded Marlon Byrd, who was probably their best position player with David Wright out, on Marlon Byrd T-Shirt Night.)
Pittsburgh wasn't done, though. Today they scored a major coup by completing a trade for Twins first baseman Justin Morneau, who had spent his entire 11-year career in Minnesota. Suddenly, Joey Votto isn't the only left-handed-hitting Canadian first baseman on a contending NL Central team. And suddenly Pittsburgh's lineup is even more formidable. One of the biggest knocks on the Pirates was that they had very few players with postseason experience. Well, they've taken care of that problem and made the lineup deeper in the process. The starting pitching is still a little bit of a question mark behind A.J. Burnett and Francisco Liriano, and who knows if they're going to get Jason Grilli back, but you've gotta love that the Pirates are going for it.
These two moves contradict everything the Pirates normally do in July/August, and I mean that in a good way. They're normally the team dumping people that contenders find value in so that they can load up on prospects. Not this year. In fact, they got stronger by taking advantage of two other teams doing what they normally do. The Twins and Mets waived the white flag. As any good Pirates do, Pittsburgh had no problem pillaging those rosters once they saw that flag go up.
The Pirates, of course, aren't the only contender that's improved its roster with an August waiver-wire acquisition. The Rangers didn't really have a backup plan when Nelson Cruz was suspended. Or at least that's how it seemed. At the end of July, most people thought the White Sox were going to put Alex Rios on waivers and see if there were any takers. The Rangers probably knew this, too, so they waited until Chicago did put him on waivers, then pounced. It didn't take very long for the White Sox and Rangers to complete a trade for Rios. And suddenly, Texas filled the Nelson Cruz void in right field and the lineup with an alternative that, frankly, is better.
Another one that might end up going unnoticed in the long run is the Yankees' picking up Mark Reynolds. Reynolds had played his way out of Cleveland, but the Yankees remembered him being a Yankee killer last year with the Orioles. At the very least, it was worth a shot. Well, Reynolds has been excellent since putting on the pinstripes. Most importantly, he finally gave the Yankees something they'd been looking for all season--a right-handed corner infielder. Suddenly, Lyle Overbay actually had a backup at first, and they've got somebody to play third when A-Rod DH's (this is what Kevin Youkilis was supposed to do this season). He even made a start at second earlier this week when Robinson Cano and Eduardo Nunez both had to miss a game due to injury.
I'm not saying that any of these acquisitions will result in a World Series title. The fact is the Pirates and Rangers were playoff-bound even without making these moves, and the Yankees still might not get in. But all three did get better. And maybe they will make the difference between winning and losing in October.
Saturday, August 31, 2013
Thursday, August 29, 2013
A Joke of a "Suspension"
Since my interest in college football is non-existent, I generally stay away from any college football-related posts. But today I'm making an exception because of the ridiculously absurd non-punishment Johnny Manziel received from the NCAA for his autograph scandal. Talk about a joke! Selective enforcement at its best.
The scandal involving Manziel, of course, is all about whether or not he was paid for signing thousands of autographs for sports memorabilia dealers at last year's Orange Bowl. Then he did it again a few weeks later. The dealers claimed money changed hands, but they couldn't say whether or not Manziel received any, since they never actually saw him physically get paid. This was clearly enough for the NCAA to investigate the situation, which they did.
Regardless of whether or not he received money and, if so, how much, Manziel should've known better. You're signing thousands of footballs and helmets and pictures for these dealers out of the goodness of your heart? Of course not. Somebody obviously profited off it. Even if it wasn't Manziel himself. The only reason these dealers wanted Manziel-autographed merchandise was because they knew there was a market for it. Likewise, somebody involved with Manziel got something, whether it was a flat fee or a percentage or some combination of the two.
Manziel deserved to be suspended just for the fact that all this even happened. That's why all summer everybody around Texas A&M was freaking out about how long it would be and if it would permanently affect his eligibility. Everyone was bracing themselves for a suspension of some length. He was looking at four games minimum. At least that's what he deserved.
Instead, the NCAA inexplicably came back, concluded their investigation, and essentially determined Manziel did nothing wrong. They didn't suspend him for the season. Or half the season. Or a handful of games. They didn't even suspend him for an entire contest. They're only making him sit out the first half of this weekend's season opener. Against Rice. A three-month investigation about a serious NCAA no-no and all he gets is a slap on the wrist? Please!
I'm not saying Manziel definitely took money. We don't know. That's the point. All we know is that something clearly went on, and you'd have to be a total idiot to think that Manziel is completely guilt-free. Yet that's what the NCAA would like us to believe. Even if you believe the "ignorance is bliss" theory, that can only carry you so far. How then do you explain that he had several of these autograph-signing sessions? It doesn't add up.
Not holding Manziel accountable for his involvement, however small, sets a bad precedent. The NCAA already has its critics for a number of reasons. And their decision here isn't going to do anything to improve people's perception of the NCAA. Or, more importantly, its credibility. To those critics, this is further proof that the NCAA lacks significant control in critical areas.
Johnny Manziel is a golden boy. He made history last year as the first freshman to win the Heisman Trophy, and he has that cool "Johnny Football" nickname, too. Nobody wanted anything to happen to his squeaky-clean image. Not college football fans. Not Texas A&M. Certainly not the NCAA. And I can't help but feel that came into play here, with the NCAA's (lack of) "decision." They didn't want to suspend Johnny Manziel, so they didn't (unless you count the first half of the season opener as a legitimate "suspension").
It's a dangerous precedent the NCAA has set here, and I hope it doesn't come back to bite them. Even more so, I hope Johnny Manziel has learned from this. Because, let's face it, he got lucky. Next time he won't be.
The scandal involving Manziel, of course, is all about whether or not he was paid for signing thousands of autographs for sports memorabilia dealers at last year's Orange Bowl. Then he did it again a few weeks later. The dealers claimed money changed hands, but they couldn't say whether or not Manziel received any, since they never actually saw him physically get paid. This was clearly enough for the NCAA to investigate the situation, which they did.
Regardless of whether or not he received money and, if so, how much, Manziel should've known better. You're signing thousands of footballs and helmets and pictures for these dealers out of the goodness of your heart? Of course not. Somebody obviously profited off it. Even if it wasn't Manziel himself. The only reason these dealers wanted Manziel-autographed merchandise was because they knew there was a market for it. Likewise, somebody involved with Manziel got something, whether it was a flat fee or a percentage or some combination of the two.
Manziel deserved to be suspended just for the fact that all this even happened. That's why all summer everybody around Texas A&M was freaking out about how long it would be and if it would permanently affect his eligibility. Everyone was bracing themselves for a suspension of some length. He was looking at four games minimum. At least that's what he deserved.
Instead, the NCAA inexplicably came back, concluded their investigation, and essentially determined Manziel did nothing wrong. They didn't suspend him for the season. Or half the season. Or a handful of games. They didn't even suspend him for an entire contest. They're only making him sit out the first half of this weekend's season opener. Against Rice. A three-month investigation about a serious NCAA no-no and all he gets is a slap on the wrist? Please!
I'm not saying Manziel definitely took money. We don't know. That's the point. All we know is that something clearly went on, and you'd have to be a total idiot to think that Manziel is completely guilt-free. Yet that's what the NCAA would like us to believe. Even if you believe the "ignorance is bliss" theory, that can only carry you so far. How then do you explain that he had several of these autograph-signing sessions? It doesn't add up.
Not holding Manziel accountable for his involvement, however small, sets a bad precedent. The NCAA already has its critics for a number of reasons. And their decision here isn't going to do anything to improve people's perception of the NCAA. Or, more importantly, its credibility. To those critics, this is further proof that the NCAA lacks significant control in critical areas.
Johnny Manziel is a golden boy. He made history last year as the first freshman to win the Heisman Trophy, and he has that cool "Johnny Football" nickname, too. Nobody wanted anything to happen to his squeaky-clean image. Not college football fans. Not Texas A&M. Certainly not the NCAA. And I can't help but feel that came into play here, with the NCAA's (lack of) "decision." They didn't want to suspend Johnny Manziel, so they didn't (unless you count the first half of the season opener as a legitimate "suspension").
It's a dangerous precedent the NCAA has set here, and I hope it doesn't come back to bite them. Even more so, I hope Johnny Manziel has learned from this. Because, let's face it, he got lucky. Next time he won't be.
Tuesday, August 27, 2013
Washington's Olympic Chances
Today, Washington entered the fray for the 2024 Olympics, becoming the seventh different American city to express interest in joining that race. The 2024 host won't be announced until 2017 (in fact, the 2020 host won't even be announced until next week), and the USOC hasn't even decided if an American bid will be put forth, but with the number of cities coming out an declaring their interest, it certainly looks like a bid is inevitable.
Whether or not the U.S. should bid for the 2024 Olympics is a completely different topic (my vote would be "No," a 2026 Winter bid makes much more sense, and would stand a better chance of winning). Neither is sizing up any international competition, which would be a pointless exercise at this point anyway. We don't know where the 2020 Games will be yet, and the two cities that don't win will likely re-up as candidates (a Tokyo win would all but assure a slew of European bids, as well, since that would make 12 years between European hosts).
Instead, let's compare the seven American cities that have already declared their interest against each other, while also keeping in mind that Toronto may bid, and an Olympics in Toronto would further extend the American hosting drought that by 2024 will be 28 years.
Tulsa-When Tulsa first announced it wanted to host the Olympics, I honestly thought it was a joke. But evidently they're serious. Can't blame them for dreaming, but there's no chance in hell the Olympics will ever be in Tulsa, Oklahoma. We'll let them have their cute little fantasy, though.
San Diego-My biggest problem with this bid is that they would want to co-host with Tijuana, Mexico. I didn't think that was allowed, but evidently the IOC rules have changed. Regardless, San Diego doesn't need Tijuana. If they do it with them, everything would just be weird. If they do it without them, there'd be a whole lot of resentment. Either way, there are other American cities better equipped to handle hosting the Olympics.
Dallas-Dallas is certainly capable of hosting the Olympics. The size, population, prestige and money are all there. Also no issue with venues. There are plenty of professional/college facilities in and around the Dallas/Fort Worth area that they're ahead of the curve in that regard. The big issue though is the summer Texas heat. The Rangers play almost all of their home games in July and August, even on the weekends, at night because the heat is so oppressive. Think that wouldn't be a major concern? Ask Doha.
Los Angeles-LA has hosted the Olympics twice. That's the only reason I put them in the middle of my list. Sure, London just hosted its third Olympics, but the difference between London and LA is that the number of cities capable of hosting an Olympics in the U.S. is far greater than in Great Britain. I have nothing against LA or an LA bid. I just think other American cities that have never hosted the Olympics (or necessarily even been an official candidate) should get the chance before LA goes for a third time.
Washington-I rank today's entrant, Washington, third among the interested American cities. The IOC likes capitals, which would certainly work in Washington's favor. They also have plenty of room in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area, and I'm sure they'd probably go as far as Baltimore for some events. Likewise, they've got plenty of colleges and pro arenas that they wouldn't have to do much building. The public support is there, the backdrop would be beautiful, and Washington certainly has plenty of hotel rooms. Another plus is that Congress is out of session in the summer, so the government and the Olympics really wouldn't get in each other's way. Should this Washington bid amount to something more, it would be a very solid choice.
Boston-The differences between these top cities are all very minor. In fact, it really comes down to preference. I just think an Olympics in Boston would be slightly cooler than an Olympics in Washington. The biggest thing in Boston's favor could also be something that would work against it--it would be an Olympics for all of New England. Regardless, Boston loves its sports, so support for the Olympics would be easy to get (although, the back page would still probably belong to the Red Sox). And Boston is a college town, which means there are plenty of pre-existing venues all over the city.
Philadelphia-If the only cities up for a potential American bid are the ones that have already declared their interest, Philadelphia would be my pick. I've been saying for years that Philadelphia is one of the American cities best equipped to host the Olympics. Philly bid in 2016, but the USOC chose Chicago instead. Philadelphia's ready, though, and would be an excellent choice. Everything that's needed is already in place, it's on the East coast (which NBC would likely prefer), Philly fans are ridiculously passionate, and the Olympics would add a wonderful chapter to the city's rich sporting history. Most importantly, I think a Philadelphia bid would have the greatest chance of success against international competition that will be stacked. If the ultimate goal is seeing the Olympics finally return to American soil, people would be smart to back the City of Brotherly Love.
With that in mind, Philadelphia is not the ideal American Olympic city. I'm still holding out hope that my hometown of New York will eventually put together another bid, and be successful this time, but I wouldn't even make New York the frontrunner in this race. My stance on the ideal American city to make an Olympic bid has been the same for the past few years. What city is that? San Francisco. If San Francisco ever decides it wants to bid for the Olympics again, it will immediately jump to the front of the line among American contenders. Not only that, San Francisco would instantly rank very highly among all potential host cities. I'm that confident an Olympics in San Francisco would be amazing.
Whether or not the U.S. should bid for the 2024 Olympics is a completely different topic (my vote would be "No," a 2026 Winter bid makes much more sense, and would stand a better chance of winning). Neither is sizing up any international competition, which would be a pointless exercise at this point anyway. We don't know where the 2020 Games will be yet, and the two cities that don't win will likely re-up as candidates (a Tokyo win would all but assure a slew of European bids, as well, since that would make 12 years between European hosts).
Instead, let's compare the seven American cities that have already declared their interest against each other, while also keeping in mind that Toronto may bid, and an Olympics in Toronto would further extend the American hosting drought that by 2024 will be 28 years.
Tulsa-When Tulsa first announced it wanted to host the Olympics, I honestly thought it was a joke. But evidently they're serious. Can't blame them for dreaming, but there's no chance in hell the Olympics will ever be in Tulsa, Oklahoma. We'll let them have their cute little fantasy, though.
San Diego-My biggest problem with this bid is that they would want to co-host with Tijuana, Mexico. I didn't think that was allowed, but evidently the IOC rules have changed. Regardless, San Diego doesn't need Tijuana. If they do it with them, everything would just be weird. If they do it without them, there'd be a whole lot of resentment. Either way, there are other American cities better equipped to handle hosting the Olympics.
Dallas-Dallas is certainly capable of hosting the Olympics. The size, population, prestige and money are all there. Also no issue with venues. There are plenty of professional/college facilities in and around the Dallas/Fort Worth area that they're ahead of the curve in that regard. The big issue though is the summer Texas heat. The Rangers play almost all of their home games in July and August, even on the weekends, at night because the heat is so oppressive. Think that wouldn't be a major concern? Ask Doha.
Los Angeles-LA has hosted the Olympics twice. That's the only reason I put them in the middle of my list. Sure, London just hosted its third Olympics, but the difference between London and LA is that the number of cities capable of hosting an Olympics in the U.S. is far greater than in Great Britain. I have nothing against LA or an LA bid. I just think other American cities that have never hosted the Olympics (or necessarily even been an official candidate) should get the chance before LA goes for a third time.
Washington-I rank today's entrant, Washington, third among the interested American cities. The IOC likes capitals, which would certainly work in Washington's favor. They also have plenty of room in the DC/Maryland/Virginia area, and I'm sure they'd probably go as far as Baltimore for some events. Likewise, they've got plenty of colleges and pro arenas that they wouldn't have to do much building. The public support is there, the backdrop would be beautiful, and Washington certainly has plenty of hotel rooms. Another plus is that Congress is out of session in the summer, so the government and the Olympics really wouldn't get in each other's way. Should this Washington bid amount to something more, it would be a very solid choice.
Boston-The differences between these top cities are all very minor. In fact, it really comes down to preference. I just think an Olympics in Boston would be slightly cooler than an Olympics in Washington. The biggest thing in Boston's favor could also be something that would work against it--it would be an Olympics for all of New England. Regardless, Boston loves its sports, so support for the Olympics would be easy to get (although, the back page would still probably belong to the Red Sox). And Boston is a college town, which means there are plenty of pre-existing venues all over the city.
Philadelphia-If the only cities up for a potential American bid are the ones that have already declared their interest, Philadelphia would be my pick. I've been saying for years that Philadelphia is one of the American cities best equipped to host the Olympics. Philly bid in 2016, but the USOC chose Chicago instead. Philadelphia's ready, though, and would be an excellent choice. Everything that's needed is already in place, it's on the East coast (which NBC would likely prefer), Philly fans are ridiculously passionate, and the Olympics would add a wonderful chapter to the city's rich sporting history. Most importantly, I think a Philadelphia bid would have the greatest chance of success against international competition that will be stacked. If the ultimate goal is seeing the Olympics finally return to American soil, people would be smart to back the City of Brotherly Love.
With that in mind, Philadelphia is not the ideal American Olympic city. I'm still holding out hope that my hometown of New York will eventually put together another bid, and be successful this time, but I wouldn't even make New York the frontrunner in this race. My stance on the ideal American city to make an Olympic bid has been the same for the past few years. What city is that? San Francisco. If San Francisco ever decides it wants to bid for the Olympics again, it will immediately jump to the front of the line among American contenders. Not only that, San Francisco would instantly rank very highly among all potential host cities. I'm that confident an Olympics in San Francisco would be amazing.
Sunday, August 25, 2013
It's US Open Time
We've reached the end of summer, which means only one thing. It's time for that wonderful two weeks of tennis known as the US Open. Blue courts, massive crowds, night tennis...it all adds up to a hell of a show. This year brings some changes, too. Last year I made a joke about the five straight Monday finals and whether or not they should make it permanent. Well, somebody at the USTA apparently thought I was being serious because the men's final is scheduled for Monday for the next two years. No more Saturday-Sunday back-to-back, and the Saturday night women's final, which they haven't had since 2007 anyway, is gone too. Instead, the women get the Sunday afternoon post-football slot and the men will play on Monday until ESPN takes over the TV rights entirely in 2015. More changes are coming, too. They announced last week that a retractable roof will be built over Arthur Ashe Stadium in time for the 2017 tournament.
Anyway, after not happening since 2003, we've got a possibility of there being a fourth different Grand Slam champion of the year crowned on the men's side for the second consecutive year. Player of the Year honors will likely be at stake, as well, as each of the top three players (Djokovic, Nadal, Murray) won the first three Grand Slams. The women could have four different champions, too, which would be the second time in three years. Although, Serena Williams will attempt to do something she's never done before and successfully defend a US Open title.
There are clear favorites in both tournaments, but this is the US Open. Anything can happen, as evidence by the five different men's champions in each of the last five years. This year is no different. Two women (Serena and Victoria Azarenka) stand a cut above the rest, but on the men's side, your guess as to what's going to happen is as good as mine.
First, let's talk about the elephant in the room. Roger Federer is not Roger Federer anymore. He's getting old, which is sad to watch, his quarterfinal streak ended at Wimbledon, and his ranking has dipped to No. 7. Some experts are questioning if Roger's done, while some think he might have a Sampras-like run in him (after he was past his prime, Pete Sampras reached the US Open final in 2000 and 2001 before winning the title in 2002 and promptly retiring). It might be my blind Roger fan faith, but I think he has another run in him. Whether or not it's this year is a different question.
The top of the men's game is so stacked right now, and there are six legitimate threats to win this title. Unfortunately, they're all in the same three quarters of the draw. Even worse, Murray and Djokovic are on the same side, which means no rematch of last year's epic final or the Wimbledon final (both Murray wins). It's also some sort of Grand Slam rule that there has to be a Federer-Nadal meeting in the earliest round possible. In this case, it's the quarters. And if they do meet, it would be a US Open first (get your tickets for next Wednesday night now).
Roger, of course, won five straight US Opens from 2004-08 before losing that classic against Juan Martin Del Potro in the 2009 final (interestingly, Roger's last win was the last Sunday final). But he hasn't been to the final since, and the man to beat at Flushing Meadows has become No. 1 Novak Djokovic. He's been in the last three finals and is the undisputed best hardcourt player in the world (three straight Australian Open wins). The road to the final won't be easy for Djokovic, though. At Wimbledon, he barely survived a semifinal with Del Potro before taking on a much fresher Murray in the final. So what's his US Open draw look like? Well, wouldn't you know, Del Potro in the quarters, then Murray in the semis. If Murray gets by Tomas Berdych, that is.
As fans, that third quarter is the dud, as Richard Gasquet and David Ferrer are the top two seeds. Ferrer has certainly proven his place at No. 4 in the rankings, but his semifinal appearance last year probably represents the peak of what he'll be able to do here. The Federer-Nadal winner will be a heavy favorite in the semis. The way Nadal has played this summer, getting his ranking back to No. 2 (which was pretty much inevitable since he didn't play at all last summer and had no points to defend), I'd say he's the favorite on the bottom half, but he's got a potential fourth round matchup against top American John Isner, who'll definitely have the crowd on his side and has given Nadal some trouble during the US Open Series. An upset there wouldn't completely surprise me.
For the most part, I'm going with the chalk, mainly because those potential quarterfinals are very, very yummy. I'm taking Isner over Nadal, and my only other "upset" is a mild one, 10th-seeded Milos Raonic over eighth-seeded Gasquet in the round of 16. Djokovic finally gets the better of Murray in one semi and in that epic Federer vs. Ferrer matchup, Roger pulls it out to get to one more US Open final, where he drops another classic to Nole.
Serena's the easy pick on the women's side, and the Serena-Azarenka final rematch certainly seems like the safe bet on paper. However, Samantha Stosur won the title here two years ago and, especially without Sharapova, the tournament seems wide open. Those two are the favorites, but there are a ton of women capable of making a run.
I'm going to start with Angelique Kerber, a semifinalist here in 2011 and at Wimbledon last year. She's seeded eighth and could give Serena a hard time in the quarterfinals. The other quarter in Serena's half is No. 3 Aggie Radwanska and No. 5 Li Na, the 2011 French Open champ. Li's a two-time finalist in Australia, but I don't see her going deep here. Her round of 16 match will likely be against Jelena Jankovic, the former No. 1 and 2008 US Open finalist who has finally gotten back into the Top 10 and once again resembles the player she once was. She's gotten there because of a great hardcourt season. Jankovic has a history of underperforming at Grand Slams, but can she go deep? Yeah.
Another former No. 1 who has probably inherited Jankovic's crown as "Best Player Never to Win a Slam" is Caroline Wozniacki. Her best results have come in New York, though. A finalist in 2009 and semifinal appearances in 2010-11. And you know she'll be out to atone for last year's shocking first-round loss. Wozniacki was also a victim of "Wacky Wednesday" at Wimbledon, so that'll probably be in the back of her mind, too. I like Wozniacki's chances, though. There isn't a player in her section of the draw that she shouldn't be able to beat. That includes No. 14 Maria Kirilenko, who I think has the best chance of knocking her off, former champ Svetlana Kuznetsova and No. 4 Sara Errani, who reached the semis last year.
Last year, Azarenka nearly beat Serena in the finals. She then defended her Australian Open title. So, it's pretty clear that she's comfortable on hardcourts. 2011 champion Sam Stosur awaits in the quarters and former No. 1 Ana Ivanovic is a potential fourth-round opponent (although the likelihood of an Ivanovic early-round upset is high), but a healthy Vika should have a pretty easy road to the semifinals.
Just like at Wimbledon, I'm calling upset on Serena Williams. She falls to Kerber in the quarterfinals. Kerber then goes on to beat Radwanska in the semis to reach her first Grand Slam final. Her opponent will be Azarenka, who I just don't see losing to anybody in the bottom half. That includes against Wozniacki in the semis. And, with Serena out of the way, Azarenka stakes her claim for Player of the Year by adding a US Open title to her Australian Open crown.
Anyway, after not happening since 2003, we've got a possibility of there being a fourth different Grand Slam champion of the year crowned on the men's side for the second consecutive year. Player of the Year honors will likely be at stake, as well, as each of the top three players (Djokovic, Nadal, Murray) won the first three Grand Slams. The women could have four different champions, too, which would be the second time in three years. Although, Serena Williams will attempt to do something she's never done before and successfully defend a US Open title.
There are clear favorites in both tournaments, but this is the US Open. Anything can happen, as evidence by the five different men's champions in each of the last five years. This year is no different. Two women (Serena and Victoria Azarenka) stand a cut above the rest, but on the men's side, your guess as to what's going to happen is as good as mine.
First, let's talk about the elephant in the room. Roger Federer is not Roger Federer anymore. He's getting old, which is sad to watch, his quarterfinal streak ended at Wimbledon, and his ranking has dipped to No. 7. Some experts are questioning if Roger's done, while some think he might have a Sampras-like run in him (after he was past his prime, Pete Sampras reached the US Open final in 2000 and 2001 before winning the title in 2002 and promptly retiring). It might be my blind Roger fan faith, but I think he has another run in him. Whether or not it's this year is a different question.
The top of the men's game is so stacked right now, and there are six legitimate threats to win this title. Unfortunately, they're all in the same three quarters of the draw. Even worse, Murray and Djokovic are on the same side, which means no rematch of last year's epic final or the Wimbledon final (both Murray wins). It's also some sort of Grand Slam rule that there has to be a Federer-Nadal meeting in the earliest round possible. In this case, it's the quarters. And if they do meet, it would be a US Open first (get your tickets for next Wednesday night now).
Roger, of course, won five straight US Opens from 2004-08 before losing that classic against Juan Martin Del Potro in the 2009 final (interestingly, Roger's last win was the last Sunday final). But he hasn't been to the final since, and the man to beat at Flushing Meadows has become No. 1 Novak Djokovic. He's been in the last three finals and is the undisputed best hardcourt player in the world (three straight Australian Open wins). The road to the final won't be easy for Djokovic, though. At Wimbledon, he barely survived a semifinal with Del Potro before taking on a much fresher Murray in the final. So what's his US Open draw look like? Well, wouldn't you know, Del Potro in the quarters, then Murray in the semis. If Murray gets by Tomas Berdych, that is.
As fans, that third quarter is the dud, as Richard Gasquet and David Ferrer are the top two seeds. Ferrer has certainly proven his place at No. 4 in the rankings, but his semifinal appearance last year probably represents the peak of what he'll be able to do here. The Federer-Nadal winner will be a heavy favorite in the semis. The way Nadal has played this summer, getting his ranking back to No. 2 (which was pretty much inevitable since he didn't play at all last summer and had no points to defend), I'd say he's the favorite on the bottom half, but he's got a potential fourth round matchup against top American John Isner, who'll definitely have the crowd on his side and has given Nadal some trouble during the US Open Series. An upset there wouldn't completely surprise me.
For the most part, I'm going with the chalk, mainly because those potential quarterfinals are very, very yummy. I'm taking Isner over Nadal, and my only other "upset" is a mild one, 10th-seeded Milos Raonic over eighth-seeded Gasquet in the round of 16. Djokovic finally gets the better of Murray in one semi and in that epic Federer vs. Ferrer matchup, Roger pulls it out to get to one more US Open final, where he drops another classic to Nole.
Serena's the easy pick on the women's side, and the Serena-Azarenka final rematch certainly seems like the safe bet on paper. However, Samantha Stosur won the title here two years ago and, especially without Sharapova, the tournament seems wide open. Those two are the favorites, but there are a ton of women capable of making a run.
I'm going to start with Angelique Kerber, a semifinalist here in 2011 and at Wimbledon last year. She's seeded eighth and could give Serena a hard time in the quarterfinals. The other quarter in Serena's half is No. 3 Aggie Radwanska and No. 5 Li Na, the 2011 French Open champ. Li's a two-time finalist in Australia, but I don't see her going deep here. Her round of 16 match will likely be against Jelena Jankovic, the former No. 1 and 2008 US Open finalist who has finally gotten back into the Top 10 and once again resembles the player she once was. She's gotten there because of a great hardcourt season. Jankovic has a history of underperforming at Grand Slams, but can she go deep? Yeah.
Another former No. 1 who has probably inherited Jankovic's crown as "Best Player Never to Win a Slam" is Caroline Wozniacki. Her best results have come in New York, though. A finalist in 2009 and semifinal appearances in 2010-11. And you know she'll be out to atone for last year's shocking first-round loss. Wozniacki was also a victim of "Wacky Wednesday" at Wimbledon, so that'll probably be in the back of her mind, too. I like Wozniacki's chances, though. There isn't a player in her section of the draw that she shouldn't be able to beat. That includes No. 14 Maria Kirilenko, who I think has the best chance of knocking her off, former champ Svetlana Kuznetsova and No. 4 Sara Errani, who reached the semis last year.
Last year, Azarenka nearly beat Serena in the finals. She then defended her Australian Open title. So, it's pretty clear that she's comfortable on hardcourts. 2011 champion Sam Stosur awaits in the quarters and former No. 1 Ana Ivanovic is a potential fourth-round opponent (although the likelihood of an Ivanovic early-round upset is high), but a healthy Vika should have a pretty easy road to the semifinals.
Just like at Wimbledon, I'm calling upset on Serena Williams. She falls to Kerber in the quarterfinals. Kerber then goes on to beat Radwanska in the semis to reach her first Grand Slam final. Her opponent will be Azarenka, who I just don't see losing to anybody in the bottom half. That includes against Wozniacki in the semis. And, with Serena out of the way, Azarenka stakes her claim for Player of the Year by adding a US Open title to her Australian Open crown.
Saturday, August 24, 2013
Who's Next to Fall?
It wasn't a surprise when the Angels announced earlier today that either manager Mike Scioscia or GM Jerry Dipoto won't return next season. Anaheim has been a disappointment for the last two years and a change is definitely needed. Just like a change was needed in Philadelphia, where Charlie Manuel was let go last week. Based on the subpar play of some other clubs, there are definitely some other managers at risk of being shown the door, as well.
Going into this season, we already knew that Nationals manager Davey Johnson won't be back next year. He's retiring at the end of the season. So, despite the fact that Washington is by all accounts severely underachieving, his departure is completely unrelated to their record. In fact, if he weren't retiring, I bet the Nationals would've been happy to have him back in 2014. One bad year is not a sign that Johnson suddenly lost the ability to manage.
Same thing with Giants manager Bruce Bochy. Even though San Francisco is mired in last place, they've won the World Series twice in the last three years. That's enough for him to be granted a pass for this season's struggles. And while Don Mattingly was on the hot seat for the first three months of the season, there's no way the Dodgers are canning him now. After that turnaround, he's even entered into the NL Manager of the Year discussion.
One NL West manager that might not make it to next season, though, is the Padres' Bud Black. Black was the NL Manager of the Year when the Padres won 90 games in 2010, but San Diego has struggled in the three years since. Those struggles aren't exactly his fault (there's only so much he can do with San Diego's limited payroll), but the Diamondbacks and Rockies have both managed to be reasonable contenders in that division despite their modest means. With that in mind, I'd say Black's probably gone. I'm pinning him as most likely to get fired.
Another manager who might not return is the Twins' Ron Gardenhire. He's been Minnesota's manager a long time. Since 2002. The Twins' struggles aren't entirely Gardenhire's fault (they have no pitching, and their lineup is pretty much limited to Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau), but this rebuilding period gives them a perfect opportunity to start fresh. Minnesota doesn't change managers often (Gardenhire took over for Tom Kelly, who was there for 16 years), so keeping Gardenhire (especially since the Twins are hosting the All*Star Game next year) isn't out of the realm of possibility.
Staying in the AL Central, White Sox manager Robin Ventura will almost certainly get a pass. The White Sox weren't supposed to be good last season, yet ended up leading the division for five-and-a-half months before the Tigers finally woke up in the middle of September. That brought up the expectations for this year's team, which has ended up playing more like the White Sox were projected to do in 2012. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Ventura needs another year to prove it. I think he gets it.
John Gibbons in Toronto is an interesting case. The Blue Jays brought him back this season after John Farrell left to take the Red Sox job, knowing that they were facing high expectations. Toronto, of course, hasn't met those expectations, sitting firmly in last place instead. Even still, I think it's too early to pull the plug on Gibbons 2.0. The Blue Jays know the talent is there. It's entirely possibly that all the success that was predicted this season will come in 2014. They'd be wise to make roster moves rather than a managerial change.
As for the slew of really bad teams, which is where you'd normally find the prime candidates for pink slips, I don't think that's going to be the case this year. Bo Porter took the Astros job knowing they would be potentially historically awful. Same with Mike Redmond and the Marlins. And Dale Sveum with the Cubs. Likewise, the Brewers falling apart has nothing to do with Ron Roenicke. And the Mets don't seem dissatisfied with Terry Collins, which makes me think he'll be back. Colorado shows promise under rookie skipper Walt Weiss. He's safe. So is Eric Wedge in Seattle. In fact, the Mariners show signs that they could be really, really good in the next couple years.
So, while there are inevitably going to be managerial changes this offseason, that number may be limited. The Angels and Phillies absolutely needed to do something, but they both jumped the gun. The only question remaining in Philadelphia is whether or not Ryne Sandberg will get the job full-time. Otherwise, managerial jobs could be few and far between. Because most other clubs either should or do feel reasonably comfortable with their managerial situation going into 2014.
Going into this season, we already knew that Nationals manager Davey Johnson won't be back next year. He's retiring at the end of the season. So, despite the fact that Washington is by all accounts severely underachieving, his departure is completely unrelated to their record. In fact, if he weren't retiring, I bet the Nationals would've been happy to have him back in 2014. One bad year is not a sign that Johnson suddenly lost the ability to manage.
Same thing with Giants manager Bruce Bochy. Even though San Francisco is mired in last place, they've won the World Series twice in the last three years. That's enough for him to be granted a pass for this season's struggles. And while Don Mattingly was on the hot seat for the first three months of the season, there's no way the Dodgers are canning him now. After that turnaround, he's even entered into the NL Manager of the Year discussion.
One NL West manager that might not make it to next season, though, is the Padres' Bud Black. Black was the NL Manager of the Year when the Padres won 90 games in 2010, but San Diego has struggled in the three years since. Those struggles aren't exactly his fault (there's only so much he can do with San Diego's limited payroll), but the Diamondbacks and Rockies have both managed to be reasonable contenders in that division despite their modest means. With that in mind, I'd say Black's probably gone. I'm pinning him as most likely to get fired.
Another manager who might not return is the Twins' Ron Gardenhire. He's been Minnesota's manager a long time. Since 2002. The Twins' struggles aren't entirely Gardenhire's fault (they have no pitching, and their lineup is pretty much limited to Joe Mauer and Justin Morneau), but this rebuilding period gives them a perfect opportunity to start fresh. Minnesota doesn't change managers often (Gardenhire took over for Tom Kelly, who was there for 16 years), so keeping Gardenhire (especially since the Twins are hosting the All*Star Game next year) isn't out of the realm of possibility.
Staying in the AL Central, White Sox manager Robin Ventura will almost certainly get a pass. The White Sox weren't supposed to be good last season, yet ended up leading the division for five-and-a-half months before the Tigers finally woke up in the middle of September. That brought up the expectations for this year's team, which has ended up playing more like the White Sox were projected to do in 2012. I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Ventura needs another year to prove it. I think he gets it.
John Gibbons in Toronto is an interesting case. The Blue Jays brought him back this season after John Farrell left to take the Red Sox job, knowing that they were facing high expectations. Toronto, of course, hasn't met those expectations, sitting firmly in last place instead. Even still, I think it's too early to pull the plug on Gibbons 2.0. The Blue Jays know the talent is there. It's entirely possibly that all the success that was predicted this season will come in 2014. They'd be wise to make roster moves rather than a managerial change.
As for the slew of really bad teams, which is where you'd normally find the prime candidates for pink slips, I don't think that's going to be the case this year. Bo Porter took the Astros job knowing they would be potentially historically awful. Same with Mike Redmond and the Marlins. And Dale Sveum with the Cubs. Likewise, the Brewers falling apart has nothing to do with Ron Roenicke. And the Mets don't seem dissatisfied with Terry Collins, which makes me think he'll be back. Colorado shows promise under rookie skipper Walt Weiss. He's safe. So is Eric Wedge in Seattle. In fact, the Mariners show signs that they could be really, really good in the next couple years.
So, while there are inevitably going to be managerial changes this offseason, that number may be limited. The Angels and Phillies absolutely needed to do something, but they both jumped the gun. The only question remaining in Philadelphia is whether or not Ryne Sandberg will get the job full-time. Otherwise, managerial jobs could be few and far between. Because most other clubs either should or do feel reasonably comfortable with their managerial situation going into 2014.
Wednesday, August 21, 2013
An Early Take On Fox Sports 1
I'll admit it, I haven't really watched Fox Sports 1 much since it debuted over the weekend. But with all the hype that went into the launch, I felt compelled to check it out. And my first impression is that they've got a lot of work to do if they want to compete with ESPN, which is their obvious goal.
Fox Sports 1's biggest problem is one that's not of its own making, but is a serious problem nonetheless. Nobody knows what channel it is. That's because instead of launching it as a completely separate channel, Fox Sports 1 simply replaced Speed on most cable systems. Very few people watched Speed. So, even though the new channel is the same number, it's not one that was already familiar. NBC had a similar problem when they rebranded Versus as the NBC Sports Network, but NBCSN at least shows some similar programming to when it was Versus, and those fans knew they could go to the same channel. Fox Sports 1 is kind of doing that with its NASCAR coverage, but building a network on NASCAR and UFC is a risky strategy.
I also checked out "Fox Sports Live," which wasn't very good. It was a cheap "SportsCenter" knockoff, and not a good one at that. For what's supposed to be the network's signature, highlight-based show, it should've been the one that was the best (like the fabulous "MLB Tonight" on MLB Network). Instead, they failed miserably in the areas where they tried to be different than "SportsCenter." The best part of the show was the roundtable with Charissa Thompson (who they hired away from ESPN) and former athletes including Andy Roddick and Donovan McNabb. Except it felt out of place taking up time in the highlight show. Especially since it was good enough to be its own show.
One of their other big gets was Regis Philbin. The premiere of his show "Crowd Goes Wild" was rated lower than the Little League World Series game being played on ESPN at the same time. I haven't seen it, so I can't form an opinion about the show's potential, but that's not an encouraging number.
The one show on Fox Sports 1 that I really liked was "Fox Football Daily." Getting the NFL 20 years ago is what legitimized FOX's place as the fourth broadcast network, and I've always thought FOX's NFL coverage was the best. This show is further proof of that. All of FOX's football experts providing their insights on a daily basis. It's leaps and bounds better than NBC Sports Network's "Pro Football Talk," which isn't exactly a bad show. It'll probably drag in March and April like all programming on NFL Network does, but the timing of the network's launch right smack in the middle of the preseason worked well for an NFL show.
Mainly, outside of the NFL and NASCAR, Fox Sports 1 doesn't have much that people want to watch right now, which I think is the biggest issue the new network will face for its first couple weeks. Leading up to the launch, they were promoting their opening night UFC fight big time. I know UFC is growing in popularity, but it's probably not strong enough to be the main event on the opening night of a new network. Likewise, FS1's showing a lot of soccer right now. Except it's not the Premier League, which NBC paid a king's ransom for, or even the Champions League, which they have the rights to but hasn't started yet, or even MLS. No, it was CONCACAF Champions League soccer.
There's obviously nowhere to go but up for Fox Sports 1, and the network's inevitably going to get better. NBC Sports Network had a similar problem at its launch and still doesn't have much in the primetime programming department when it's not hockey season. Maybe that's why Fox Sports 1 was launched now. They have some time to work out the kinks before the events that people really want to watch get started.
FOX has an abundance of sports rights, and they've been acquiring more and more in anticipation of launching Fox Sports 1 this year. College football season starts in a couple weeks, they're already showing all of the NASCAR shows/events that were already on Speed, and they're going to move a lot of the baseball coverage from FOX to FS1 next year. Plus, they've got the Champions League and take over the World Cup from ESPN after next year's tournament in Brazil.
Then there's college basketball. Fox Sports 1 is the exclusive home of the new Big East, which is the primary reason why the split happened this year, a year earlier than scheduled. All of the conference games, plus the entire tournament. ESPN's contract with the Big East transferred to the American Athletic Conference, which, outside of UConn, Cincinnati, Temple, Memphis and, for this year at least, Louisville, doesn't have much to offer on the basketball front. The best part is that the broadcast team for these games will be Gus Johnson and Bill Raftery. This was a home run get for Fox Sports 1, and it's one that's going to make them a serious player right off the bat.
Before I go, I'd be remiss not to mention the top-notch talent Fox Sports 1 has hired away from the other networks. They want to make a splash immediately. While they've still got some kinks to work out, I'm certain that's going to happen. Fox Sports 1 will leave its mark on the sports cable landscape in much the same way its parent network left an indelible mark on broadcast TV when it launched 25 years ago.
Fox Sports 1's biggest problem is one that's not of its own making, but is a serious problem nonetheless. Nobody knows what channel it is. That's because instead of launching it as a completely separate channel, Fox Sports 1 simply replaced Speed on most cable systems. Very few people watched Speed. So, even though the new channel is the same number, it's not one that was already familiar. NBC had a similar problem when they rebranded Versus as the NBC Sports Network, but NBCSN at least shows some similar programming to when it was Versus, and those fans knew they could go to the same channel. Fox Sports 1 is kind of doing that with its NASCAR coverage, but building a network on NASCAR and UFC is a risky strategy.
I also checked out "Fox Sports Live," which wasn't very good. It was a cheap "SportsCenter" knockoff, and not a good one at that. For what's supposed to be the network's signature, highlight-based show, it should've been the one that was the best (like the fabulous "MLB Tonight" on MLB Network). Instead, they failed miserably in the areas where they tried to be different than "SportsCenter." The best part of the show was the roundtable with Charissa Thompson (who they hired away from ESPN) and former athletes including Andy Roddick and Donovan McNabb. Except it felt out of place taking up time in the highlight show. Especially since it was good enough to be its own show.
One of their other big gets was Regis Philbin. The premiere of his show "Crowd Goes Wild" was rated lower than the Little League World Series game being played on ESPN at the same time. I haven't seen it, so I can't form an opinion about the show's potential, but that's not an encouraging number.
The one show on Fox Sports 1 that I really liked was "Fox Football Daily." Getting the NFL 20 years ago is what legitimized FOX's place as the fourth broadcast network, and I've always thought FOX's NFL coverage was the best. This show is further proof of that. All of FOX's football experts providing their insights on a daily basis. It's leaps and bounds better than NBC Sports Network's "Pro Football Talk," which isn't exactly a bad show. It'll probably drag in March and April like all programming on NFL Network does, but the timing of the network's launch right smack in the middle of the preseason worked well for an NFL show.
Mainly, outside of the NFL and NASCAR, Fox Sports 1 doesn't have much that people want to watch right now, which I think is the biggest issue the new network will face for its first couple weeks. Leading up to the launch, they were promoting their opening night UFC fight big time. I know UFC is growing in popularity, but it's probably not strong enough to be the main event on the opening night of a new network. Likewise, FS1's showing a lot of soccer right now. Except it's not the Premier League, which NBC paid a king's ransom for, or even the Champions League, which they have the rights to but hasn't started yet, or even MLS. No, it was CONCACAF Champions League soccer.
There's obviously nowhere to go but up for Fox Sports 1, and the network's inevitably going to get better. NBC Sports Network had a similar problem at its launch and still doesn't have much in the primetime programming department when it's not hockey season. Maybe that's why Fox Sports 1 was launched now. They have some time to work out the kinks before the events that people really want to watch get started.
FOX has an abundance of sports rights, and they've been acquiring more and more in anticipation of launching Fox Sports 1 this year. College football season starts in a couple weeks, they're already showing all of the NASCAR shows/events that were already on Speed, and they're going to move a lot of the baseball coverage from FOX to FS1 next year. Plus, they've got the Champions League and take over the World Cup from ESPN after next year's tournament in Brazil.
Then there's college basketball. Fox Sports 1 is the exclusive home of the new Big East, which is the primary reason why the split happened this year, a year earlier than scheduled. All of the conference games, plus the entire tournament. ESPN's contract with the Big East transferred to the American Athletic Conference, which, outside of UConn, Cincinnati, Temple, Memphis and, for this year at least, Louisville, doesn't have much to offer on the basketball front. The best part is that the broadcast team for these games will be Gus Johnson and Bill Raftery. This was a home run get for Fox Sports 1, and it's one that's going to make them a serious player right off the bat.
Before I go, I'd be remiss not to mention the top-notch talent Fox Sports 1 has hired away from the other networks. They want to make a splash immediately. While they've still got some kinks to work out, I'm certain that's going to happen. Fox Sports 1 will leave its mark on the sports cable landscape in much the same way its parent network left an indelible mark on broadcast TV when it launched 25 years ago.
Monday, August 19, 2013
Division-by-Division Strength
With the NFL season about to begin, it's almost time to start seeing team-by-team previews and preseason predictions. I'll give you mine soon enough, but a discussion I had earlier today got me in a football mood. More specifically, the annual conversation about which division is the strongest. This topic always comes up at some point during the season, and we've seen the "worst" division title alternate between the NFC West, AFC South and AFC West in the last few seasons. Well, with the 49ers and Seahawks, the NFC West is suddenly really good, and the AFC West will be more than just the Broncos this year. So, which division is the worst (and the best)? Glad you asked...
8. AFC East: I've been saying for the past few seasons that the Patriots are one of the most overrated teams in football. Their record isn't so much a result of how good they are as it is a reflection of how bad the AFC East is. The Bills are the only team in the NFL that hasn't made the playoffs this century (and they once employed me, for whatever that's worth), the Dolphins go back-and-forth between rebuilding and underachieving, and do I even need to say anything about the Jets? The Patriots are going to win the division by the end of November. The other three are all that bad. They might combine for 30 losses.
7. AFC South: The Jaguars aren't good. The Titans aren't much better. The Colts were equally bad in their quarterback-less 2011 season, but made the playoffs last year in the beginning of the Andrew Luck Era. Houston has been legitimately good for a while. Fortunately for them, they aren't the only good team in the division anymore. And that was enough to move the AFC South out of the cellar.
6. AFC West: Last season, the "worst division in football" was hung on the AFC West, a division that consisted of a really good Broncos team and three incredibly bad teams. The AFC West is going to be slightly better this season, so I moved it up a couple of rungs. The Chiefs will be infinitely improved with Andy Reid coaching, and the Chargers will likely do their typical 8-8/7-9 thing. Who knows what's going on with the Raiders? They'll eventually stop being a laughingstock at some point, and they're good for a random win or two over a good team every season.
5. NFC South: Much like its AFC counterpart, the NFC South contains two good teams. Really good teams in fact. You'd have to be an idiot to think the Saints won't improve with Sean Payton back coaching. The Bucs look like they'll either surprise some teams and make a run at the playoffs or have the bad luck they had last year and end up 6-10. Same thing with the Panthers. They've got talent and can potentially beat some teams, but not enough to challenge for the division title.
4. NFC West: In a not-so-short amount of time, the NFC West has gone from complete joke to ridiculously formidable. The 49ers and Seahawks are both being talked about as potential Super Bowl teams (I don't get the people who say Seattle's the best team in football when they aren't even the best team in their division, though), the Rams have gotten a lot better under Jeff Fisher and are definitely potential sleepers. The Cardinals might be the worst team in this division, which isn't a knock on them by any means. It just shows how good the 49ers, Seahawks and Rams are.
3. NFC East: Year-after-year, this is the most competitive division in the game. That's what happens when you get four teams that, for the most part, are at least worthy of being in the playoff discussion every season. Going into the season, you never know who's going to win the NFC East. You might have an idea, but every team could potentially finish first or fourth, and there's generally not that much separating them. Even after the Eagles had a down year last season, the same thing is true once again.
2. AFC North: A lot of people are high on the Browns and jumping on that Cleveland bandwagon. I can't jump aboard, though. Because what I think a lot of Browns fans are conveniently forgetting is that even though they'll be significantly better, they're still the fourth-best team in the AFC North. The other three teams in the division all made the playoffs two years ago. Baltimore, of course, won the Super Bowl last season and was joined in the playoffs by Cincinnati, and the most shocking thing about that is that the Steelers actually didn't make the playoffs. When the Pittsburgh Steelers finish third, you know you've got a good division on your hands.
1. NFC North: There's only one division that ranks above the AFC North. And that's the NFC North. Consider: there's the Packers. Not much more needs to be said about one of the NFL's most consistently good teams. The Vikings, despite having Adrian Peterson and little else, made the playoffs last year, and the Bears fired Lovie Smith because they should've and they know it. As for the de facto worst team in the division, the Lions could easily go 9-7 and get a wild card. Much like the NFC East, the NFC North is tough to predict. That's what happens when you've got four good teams playing each other twice a year.
So, when determining who's going to make the playoffs and how you think they'll get there, keep strength of schedule in mind. The Patriots are going to have a good record because of the AFC East, while whoever comes out of the NFC North is going to be battle-tested and ready for January. Even if the Packers do end up 10-6.
8. AFC East: I've been saying for the past few seasons that the Patriots are one of the most overrated teams in football. Their record isn't so much a result of how good they are as it is a reflection of how bad the AFC East is. The Bills are the only team in the NFL that hasn't made the playoffs this century (and they once employed me, for whatever that's worth), the Dolphins go back-and-forth between rebuilding and underachieving, and do I even need to say anything about the Jets? The Patriots are going to win the division by the end of November. The other three are all that bad. They might combine for 30 losses.
7. AFC South: The Jaguars aren't good. The Titans aren't much better. The Colts were equally bad in their quarterback-less 2011 season, but made the playoffs last year in the beginning of the Andrew Luck Era. Houston has been legitimately good for a while. Fortunately for them, they aren't the only good team in the division anymore. And that was enough to move the AFC South out of the cellar.
6. AFC West: Last season, the "worst division in football" was hung on the AFC West, a division that consisted of a really good Broncos team and three incredibly bad teams. The AFC West is going to be slightly better this season, so I moved it up a couple of rungs. The Chiefs will be infinitely improved with Andy Reid coaching, and the Chargers will likely do their typical 8-8/7-9 thing. Who knows what's going on with the Raiders? They'll eventually stop being a laughingstock at some point, and they're good for a random win or two over a good team every season.
5. NFC South: Much like its AFC counterpart, the NFC South contains two good teams. Really good teams in fact. You'd have to be an idiot to think the Saints won't improve with Sean Payton back coaching. The Bucs look like they'll either surprise some teams and make a run at the playoffs or have the bad luck they had last year and end up 6-10. Same thing with the Panthers. They've got talent and can potentially beat some teams, but not enough to challenge for the division title.
4. NFC West: In a not-so-short amount of time, the NFC West has gone from complete joke to ridiculously formidable. The 49ers and Seahawks are both being talked about as potential Super Bowl teams (I don't get the people who say Seattle's the best team in football when they aren't even the best team in their division, though), the Rams have gotten a lot better under Jeff Fisher and are definitely potential sleepers. The Cardinals might be the worst team in this division, which isn't a knock on them by any means. It just shows how good the 49ers, Seahawks and Rams are.
3. NFC East: Year-after-year, this is the most competitive division in the game. That's what happens when you get four teams that, for the most part, are at least worthy of being in the playoff discussion every season. Going into the season, you never know who's going to win the NFC East. You might have an idea, but every team could potentially finish first or fourth, and there's generally not that much separating them. Even after the Eagles had a down year last season, the same thing is true once again.
2. AFC North: A lot of people are high on the Browns and jumping on that Cleveland bandwagon. I can't jump aboard, though. Because what I think a lot of Browns fans are conveniently forgetting is that even though they'll be significantly better, they're still the fourth-best team in the AFC North. The other three teams in the division all made the playoffs two years ago. Baltimore, of course, won the Super Bowl last season and was joined in the playoffs by Cincinnati, and the most shocking thing about that is that the Steelers actually didn't make the playoffs. When the Pittsburgh Steelers finish third, you know you've got a good division on your hands.
1. NFC North: There's only one division that ranks above the AFC North. And that's the NFC North. Consider: there's the Packers. Not much more needs to be said about one of the NFL's most consistently good teams. The Vikings, despite having Adrian Peterson and little else, made the playoffs last year, and the Bears fired Lovie Smith because they should've and they know it. As for the de facto worst team in the division, the Lions could easily go 9-7 and get a wild card. Much like the NFC East, the NFC North is tough to predict. That's what happens when you've got four good teams playing each other twice a year.
So, when determining who's going to make the playoffs and how you think they'll get there, keep strength of schedule in mind. The Patriots are going to have a good record because of the AFC East, while whoever comes out of the NFC North is going to be battle-tested and ready for January. Even if the Packers do end up 10-6.
Saturday, August 17, 2013
Russia: Hotbed Of Controversy
With Russia hosting the World Track & Field Championships and the Olympics within six months of each other (and the 2018 World Cup on the horizon, too), everybody knew the country was going to be the center of the sporting world's attention a lot between now and then. Of course, Russia was already in the news because of its controversial anti-gay legislation that was recently signed into law. As we've seen during the Track & Field World Championships, the controversy isn't going away. (NBC has done a piece on it during every day of its coverage.) In fact, the athletes are taking it upon themselves to jump right in the middle of it.
As I understand it, the law, which was put into effect on June 30, basically prohibits "non-traditional sexual relationships." Individuals will be fined if they spread "gay propaganda," which includes such basic things as wearing a rainbow-colored tie or holding hands with your partner in public. (It should be noted here that homosexuality itself is NOT illegal in Russia, which seems to be a big point of confusion for many people.)
Russian citizens aren't the only ones subject to this legislation. Foreigners must also comply or could face deportation. That's where the IOC became concerned. They sought clarification about the law and whether or not it will be applied during the Sochi Olympics. After the IOC was given assurances that it would be suspended, the Russian government seemed to backtrack and say that the law would indeed be in effect in Sochi. There are still six months to go before the Olympics, and I don't think anyone's sure what the deal is going to be for the thousands of fans and athletes from around the world that will gather in Sochi. That's obviously something they're going to need to figure out between now and then.
Ever since the law was enacted, it's been almost universally condemned, and there have been the inevitable anti-Russian protests across the globe. There have even been calls for an Olympic boycott, which would serve no practical purpose (other than depriving your own athletes of their shot at Olympic glory) and be incredibly self-defeating for any nation stupid enough to go to that extreme.
Athletes are among those who've most visibly spoken out against the law. Track & field stars, in particular, have taken advantage of the fact that the World Championships are in Moscow and used it as a forum to voice their criticism. American Nick Symmonds, who isn't one to shy away from controversy (he seems to have an opinion on every issue, which makes it hard for me to embrace Symmonds) wanted to wear a rainbow badge as a sign of support for his gay friends. Instead, Symmonds dedicated his silver medal in the 800 meters to them. Sweden's Emma Green wore rainbow nails as a silent protest during the qualifying round of the women's high jump, but switched to red for today's final after the Swedish federation was warned it might be against the rules for her to do that (athletes aren't allowed to make political statements during competition).
The most visible Russian athlete in Moscow is without a doubt pole vault gold medalist Yelena Isinbayeva. Isinbayeva has also been vocal about the law, calling such protests "disrespectful" while defending her country's government. During an interview, she was asked about Green and another Swedish athlete (who did the same thing). Isinbayeva responded, in English, with comments supporting the law. Others were shocked and called on her to step down as an Olympic youth ambassador.
I love it how when athletes are asked questions about something controversial and answer them honestly, they get nailed for it. I'm not saying I agree with Isinbayeva (I don't), but would you rather she lie just to be PC? A lot of people disagree with her. That's fine. They're completely entitled to that opinion. But Isinbayeva is entitled to hers, as well. She doesn't deserve to be dragged over the coals for it. Especially since she isn't the one who brought it up.
Isinbayeva released a written statement the following day clarifying her remarks. She noted that English isn't her first language, so what she meant to say was misinterpreted. Isinbayeva made it a point to say that she respects her fellow athletes' opinions and isn't personally opposed to same-sex relationships. What she wanted to say, she said, is that you should respect the laws of other countries, especially when there as a guest.
Whether it was sincere contrition or a face-saving PR strategy (I suspect a little bit of both) doesn't matter. Neither does whether or not you believe her "English isn't my first language" excuse. The fact that a lot of people were offended by Isinbayeva's original comments isn't the issue, either.
There's one part of her written statement that I can't get past. And on that part, I must say I have to agree with her. If you're visiting another country, you should respect that country's laws, just like you would expect someone from that country to respect your country's laws. Whether or not you agree with those laws is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a good number of Russians seem to favor the law, which is probably one of the reasons why it was passed in the first place.
While I don't agree with this law, I'm not one to tell the Russian government how to run its country. Even if I or you or a whole bunch of people think it's wrong, it's not up to us. Nor should it be. Especially if it's what the Russian people want. Protesting and boycotting aren't the answer. Besides, Russia's not the only country with a dubious and controversial law on the books (in some Arab countries, women aren't allowed to drive or go out alone at night). It's just the newest one, so its fresh in everybody's heads, and its highly visible because this is all taking place in Russia.
This law will obviously continue to be a hot-button issue leading up to, and probably during, the Sochi Olympics. I suspect they'll find some sort of compromise that will make everyone feel comfortable. Regardless, though, this law threatens to cast a very large shadow over those Games, which, I think we can all agree, no one wants.
As I understand it, the law, which was put into effect on June 30, basically prohibits "non-traditional sexual relationships." Individuals will be fined if they spread "gay propaganda," which includes such basic things as wearing a rainbow-colored tie or holding hands with your partner in public. (It should be noted here that homosexuality itself is NOT illegal in Russia, which seems to be a big point of confusion for many people.)
Russian citizens aren't the only ones subject to this legislation. Foreigners must also comply or could face deportation. That's where the IOC became concerned. They sought clarification about the law and whether or not it will be applied during the Sochi Olympics. After the IOC was given assurances that it would be suspended, the Russian government seemed to backtrack and say that the law would indeed be in effect in Sochi. There are still six months to go before the Olympics, and I don't think anyone's sure what the deal is going to be for the thousands of fans and athletes from around the world that will gather in Sochi. That's obviously something they're going to need to figure out between now and then.
Ever since the law was enacted, it's been almost universally condemned, and there have been the inevitable anti-Russian protests across the globe. There have even been calls for an Olympic boycott, which would serve no practical purpose (other than depriving your own athletes of their shot at Olympic glory) and be incredibly self-defeating for any nation stupid enough to go to that extreme.
Athletes are among those who've most visibly spoken out against the law. Track & field stars, in particular, have taken advantage of the fact that the World Championships are in Moscow and used it as a forum to voice their criticism. American Nick Symmonds, who isn't one to shy away from controversy (he seems to have an opinion on every issue, which makes it hard for me to embrace Symmonds) wanted to wear a rainbow badge as a sign of support for his gay friends. Instead, Symmonds dedicated his silver medal in the 800 meters to them. Sweden's Emma Green wore rainbow nails as a silent protest during the qualifying round of the women's high jump, but switched to red for today's final after the Swedish federation was warned it might be against the rules for her to do that (athletes aren't allowed to make political statements during competition).
The most visible Russian athlete in Moscow is without a doubt pole vault gold medalist Yelena Isinbayeva. Isinbayeva has also been vocal about the law, calling such protests "disrespectful" while defending her country's government. During an interview, she was asked about Green and another Swedish athlete (who did the same thing). Isinbayeva responded, in English, with comments supporting the law. Others were shocked and called on her to step down as an Olympic youth ambassador.
I love it how when athletes are asked questions about something controversial and answer them honestly, they get nailed for it. I'm not saying I agree with Isinbayeva (I don't), but would you rather she lie just to be PC? A lot of people disagree with her. That's fine. They're completely entitled to that opinion. But Isinbayeva is entitled to hers, as well. She doesn't deserve to be dragged over the coals for it. Especially since she isn't the one who brought it up.
Isinbayeva released a written statement the following day clarifying her remarks. She noted that English isn't her first language, so what she meant to say was misinterpreted. Isinbayeva made it a point to say that she respects her fellow athletes' opinions and isn't personally opposed to same-sex relationships. What she wanted to say, she said, is that you should respect the laws of other countries, especially when there as a guest.
Whether it was sincere contrition or a face-saving PR strategy (I suspect a little bit of both) doesn't matter. Neither does whether or not you believe her "English isn't my first language" excuse. The fact that a lot of people were offended by Isinbayeva's original comments isn't the issue, either.
There's one part of her written statement that I can't get past. And on that part, I must say I have to agree with her. If you're visiting another country, you should respect that country's laws, just like you would expect someone from that country to respect your country's laws. Whether or not you agree with those laws is irrelevant. What is relevant is that a good number of Russians seem to favor the law, which is probably one of the reasons why it was passed in the first place.
While I don't agree with this law, I'm not one to tell the Russian government how to run its country. Even if I or you or a whole bunch of people think it's wrong, it's not up to us. Nor should it be. Especially if it's what the Russian people want. Protesting and boycotting aren't the answer. Besides, Russia's not the only country with a dubious and controversial law on the books (in some Arab countries, women aren't allowed to drive or go out alone at night). It's just the newest one, so its fresh in everybody's heads, and its highly visible because this is all taking place in Russia.
This law will obviously continue to be a hot-button issue leading up to, and probably during, the Sochi Olympics. I suspect they'll find some sort of compromise that will make everyone feel comfortable. Regardless, though, this law threatens to cast a very large shadow over those Games, which, I think we can all agree, no one wants.
Wednesday, August 14, 2013
Best Centerfielders In the Game
One of my favorite players growing up was the great Ken Griffey, Jr. Junior was inducted into the Mariners Hall of Fame over the weekend, and I don't think there's any doubt that he'll be the first player to be sporting a Mariners hat on his plaque in Cooperstown.
Seeing that moving ceremony brought about a discussion of Junior's place in history. I argued that if he hadn't been injured so much during his time in Cincinnati, we'd be talking about him on the short list of greatest players of all-time. However, he'll have to settle simply for being one of the best centerfielders ever. Definitely in the top five. If not for the injuries, he'd be up there right behind Willie Mays as a clear No. 2 all-time. He still might be, although I'm a little more inclined to put Mantle and/or DiMaggio ahead of him.
The greatest centerfielder of all-time debate is definitely a fun one. While you'd probably get a near-consensus on Willie Mays at No. 1, I have a feeling positions 2-10 would vary greatly depending on who you asked. So instead of using Ken Griffey, Jr., as my inspiration to count down the best centerfielders in history, I took on the much easier task of determining the best ones right now. Choosing 10 was the easy part. Ranking them, however, that was another story. There are some really good centerfielders in the game right now (Bryce Harper is primarily a left fielder, so he doesn't qualify for this list).
10. Austin Jackson, Tigers-He strikes out a lot and his on-base percentage might be a little low for a leadoff hitter, but he's the perfect guy in that role on that Tigers team. And you know what? He's a pretty good defensive centerfielder, too.
9. Dexter Fowler, Rockies-This selection might be a little confusing to some, but Dexter Fowler's really come into his own. Very few people have realized because he plays in Colorado and is the third-best outfielder on that team, but, after a couple years where he was getting shuttled back-and-forth to Triple A, Fowler's finally found his groove. Defensively, he's committed just two errors this season.
8. B.J. Upton, Braves-I know that some others probably wouldn't rank B.J. Upton among the Top 10, especially since he's hitting below .200 after signing that megadeal in the offseason. In the long run, though, I think the B.J. Upton that was in Tampa will eventually show up in Atlanta. Based on that potential, which is the reason he got that contract in the first place, I've got him in the eight spot.
7. Angel Pagan, Giants-It's not a coincidence that in Pagan's three years in San Francisco, the Giants have won the World Series twice. Talk about a guy who's a perfect fit for a team and a ballpark, it's Angel Pagan with the Giants and AT&T Park. He's one of my favorite players in baseball. And let's not forget he was the centerfielder for the Puerto Rican team that finished second in the World Baseball Classic.
6. Denard Span, Nationals-I loved Denard Span with the Twins. I love him even more with the Nationals. They decided that after last year, they didn't want Harper in center anymore. They also needed a leadoff hitter. So they killed two birds with one stone by trading for Span. This year hasn't gone as planned for Washington. That's not Denard Span's fault. In the long run, they're going to make out big time for getting a still-in-his-prime leadoff hitter who's also an awesome centerfielder.
5. Jacoby Ellsbury, Red Sox-The top five really stand head and shoulders above the rest, starting with Jacoby Ellsbury. As a Yankees fan, he's one of the Red Sox I find most annoying. But coming from a Yankees fan, that's a tremendous complement. It's no secret that he's one of the most important players on that team. Just look at last year when he was hurt and they were a complete mess. This year, I think he probably should've been on the All-Star team.
4. Matt Kemp, Dodgers-If he wasn't hurt all the time, there's no way Matt Kemp would be ranked this low. The definition of a five-tool player, he's one of the absolute best all-around players in the game when he actually is on the field. Like in 2011, when he put up MVP-type numbers. When he actually does come back, if he's anything like the Matt Kemp of old, the Dodgers are going to be that much better.
3. Andrew McCutchen, Pirates-The Pirates have been steadily climbing towards respectability over the past few years, and it looks like they're finally going to break through this season. Andrew McCutchen is one of the biggest reasons why. He can do it all, and he does. It's not a stretch to say he's among the frontrunners for National League MVP. And defensively he's one of the best there is. I can't wait to see what this guy's going to do in October.
2. Mike Trout, Angels-"What? Mike Trout's only No. 2?" Yes. For one, the Angels play Trout in left half the time, even though center's his best position, because of their stubborn insistence that Peter Bourjos is a Major League outfielder (he's not). This has nothing to do with the sabermetrics vs. old-school stats debate that was front-and-center last year because of Trout. He's got skills coming out the wazzou and is really fun to watch play. I just think he ranks ever so slightly below...
1. Adam Jones, Orioles-With all due respect to Chris Davis, Adam Jones is the Orioles' best player. What can't he do? That's a good young team that's built for sustained success. As long as they can hang on to Adam Jones and keep him healthy. An in-his-prime player at a premium position who hits in the middle of the order and plays sensational defense in centerfield. That trade with Seattle to get Jones a few years ago has turned into an absolute steal for Baltimore.
So, there you have it. Positions 1-4 are pretty much interchangeable, but I'll take any of them. They all prove that long-standing belief that a good centerfielder is an important key to success. That's why four of those five teams are currently in the playoff race.
Seeing that moving ceremony brought about a discussion of Junior's place in history. I argued that if he hadn't been injured so much during his time in Cincinnati, we'd be talking about him on the short list of greatest players of all-time. However, he'll have to settle simply for being one of the best centerfielders ever. Definitely in the top five. If not for the injuries, he'd be up there right behind Willie Mays as a clear No. 2 all-time. He still might be, although I'm a little more inclined to put Mantle and/or DiMaggio ahead of him.
The greatest centerfielder of all-time debate is definitely a fun one. While you'd probably get a near-consensus on Willie Mays at No. 1, I have a feeling positions 2-10 would vary greatly depending on who you asked. So instead of using Ken Griffey, Jr., as my inspiration to count down the best centerfielders in history, I took on the much easier task of determining the best ones right now. Choosing 10 was the easy part. Ranking them, however, that was another story. There are some really good centerfielders in the game right now (Bryce Harper is primarily a left fielder, so he doesn't qualify for this list).
10. Austin Jackson, Tigers-He strikes out a lot and his on-base percentage might be a little low for a leadoff hitter, but he's the perfect guy in that role on that Tigers team. And you know what? He's a pretty good defensive centerfielder, too.
9. Dexter Fowler, Rockies-This selection might be a little confusing to some, but Dexter Fowler's really come into his own. Very few people have realized because he plays in Colorado and is the third-best outfielder on that team, but, after a couple years where he was getting shuttled back-and-forth to Triple A, Fowler's finally found his groove. Defensively, he's committed just two errors this season.
8. B.J. Upton, Braves-I know that some others probably wouldn't rank B.J. Upton among the Top 10, especially since he's hitting below .200 after signing that megadeal in the offseason. In the long run, though, I think the B.J. Upton that was in Tampa will eventually show up in Atlanta. Based on that potential, which is the reason he got that contract in the first place, I've got him in the eight spot.
7. Angel Pagan, Giants-It's not a coincidence that in Pagan's three years in San Francisco, the Giants have won the World Series twice. Talk about a guy who's a perfect fit for a team and a ballpark, it's Angel Pagan with the Giants and AT&T Park. He's one of my favorite players in baseball. And let's not forget he was the centerfielder for the Puerto Rican team that finished second in the World Baseball Classic.
6. Denard Span, Nationals-I loved Denard Span with the Twins. I love him even more with the Nationals. They decided that after last year, they didn't want Harper in center anymore. They also needed a leadoff hitter. So they killed two birds with one stone by trading for Span. This year hasn't gone as planned for Washington. That's not Denard Span's fault. In the long run, they're going to make out big time for getting a still-in-his-prime leadoff hitter who's also an awesome centerfielder.
5. Jacoby Ellsbury, Red Sox-The top five really stand head and shoulders above the rest, starting with Jacoby Ellsbury. As a Yankees fan, he's one of the Red Sox I find most annoying. But coming from a Yankees fan, that's a tremendous complement. It's no secret that he's one of the most important players on that team. Just look at last year when he was hurt and they were a complete mess. This year, I think he probably should've been on the All-Star team.
4. Matt Kemp, Dodgers-If he wasn't hurt all the time, there's no way Matt Kemp would be ranked this low. The definition of a five-tool player, he's one of the absolute best all-around players in the game when he actually is on the field. Like in 2011, when he put up MVP-type numbers. When he actually does come back, if he's anything like the Matt Kemp of old, the Dodgers are going to be that much better.
3. Andrew McCutchen, Pirates-The Pirates have been steadily climbing towards respectability over the past few years, and it looks like they're finally going to break through this season. Andrew McCutchen is one of the biggest reasons why. He can do it all, and he does. It's not a stretch to say he's among the frontrunners for National League MVP. And defensively he's one of the best there is. I can't wait to see what this guy's going to do in October.
2. Mike Trout, Angels-"What? Mike Trout's only No. 2?" Yes. For one, the Angels play Trout in left half the time, even though center's his best position, because of their stubborn insistence that Peter Bourjos is a Major League outfielder (he's not). This has nothing to do with the sabermetrics vs. old-school stats debate that was front-and-center last year because of Trout. He's got skills coming out the wazzou and is really fun to watch play. I just think he ranks ever so slightly below...
1. Adam Jones, Orioles-With all due respect to Chris Davis, Adam Jones is the Orioles' best player. What can't he do? That's a good young team that's built for sustained success. As long as they can hang on to Adam Jones and keep him healthy. An in-his-prime player at a premium position who hits in the middle of the order and plays sensational defense in centerfield. That trade with Seattle to get Jones a few years ago has turned into an absolute steal for Baltimore.
So, there you have it. Positions 1-4 are pretty much interchangeable, but I'll take any of them. They all prove that long-standing belief that a good centerfielder is an important key to success. That's why four of those five teams are currently in the playoff race.
Monday, August 12, 2013
Unless You've Got Proof...
...it's probably best to keep your suspicions about PED usage in the Major Leagues to yourself. Former Major Leaguer Jack Clark learned that one the hard way last week, when he used his St. Louis radio show as a forum to announce that he "knew" Albert Pujols and Justin Verlander were both using. Pujols immediately threatened legal action, Clark's "source" told him he was dead wrong, and Clark was promptly fired. And this entire issue shed light on a much larger problem: when it comes to Major League Baseball players it's guilty until proven innocent, even if you just suspect a guy is on something.
Of course, Clark's comments went above and beyond suspicion. He flat-out accused Pujols of using PEDs, and the only "proof" he offered was a vague recollection of a conversation he had with a Cardinals trainer a decade ago. (He didn't even have that much to support his claims about Verlander.) Sadly, this is allowed to pass as "evidence" in today's society, at least when it comes to PEDs. The fact that Clark was dead wrong doesn't even seem to matter. He planted the seed in people's minds. Now, if Pujols ever does test positive for anything, we'll get the inevitable "I told you so" from all these new-found doubters.
The radio station is doing all the right things. They made the necessary move of showing Clark the door and, in an attempt to clean house, cancelled his show entirely. As a result, his co-host was also fired, although he's now saying that he'll sue the station, I'm guessing for wrongful termination (although that case has just as much a chance of being successful as the FanFest volunteer lawsuit). Regardless of what happens with that lawsuit, the station had no choice. They couldn't keep them on the air. Doing so would've implied they condone what Clark said.
I'm more interested in the lawsuit Pujols plans to file against Clark, though. It could be dangerous ground, as we found out with Roger Clemens vs. Brian McNamee, which is why some people are suggesting Pujols just let it go. But I also kind of admire the fact that he's willing to take a stand against this new "everybody's juicing" attitude. Slander is a very serious thing. Whether it can be legally proven (which is incredibly difficult) is another story altogether, but Jack Clark definitely slandered Albert Pujols' name. And the suspicion that he raised will now follow Pujols for the rest of his career.
We hear it all the time about players like Jose Bautista and Chris Davis, who came out of nowhere to suddenly become 40-home run guys and are immediately suspected of juicing as a result. But suspicion and direct accusations are completely different things.
Michael Kay addressed the topic during the Yankees-Tigers game on Saturday. Before becoming a broadcaster, Kay was a sportswriter. He was working for one of the New York newspapers during the McGwire-Sosa home run race in 1998. Kay told a story about how certain people had their suspicions back then, but no one really wanted to go near it. When people would ask him why nobody did, he pointed out that you couldn't just print something without any sort of proof because that's an immediate slander lawsuit.
That's the difference between what Jack Clark said and the Biogenesis situation. Yes, the Biogenesis stuff started because of a report in the Miami New Times. But that report was based on documents that were eventually turned over to MLB and led to the suspensions. And that evidence was obviously pretty strong, judging by how quickly Ryan Braun and most of the others accepted their bans. All Jack Clark did was drag Albert Pujols through the mud. Unlike Biogenesis, though, there's nothing to backup Clark's claims.
This has become our sad new reality. We can't just appreciate great players for being great. The stigma of steroids is inevitably attached to virtually everybody, even if it's just suspicion. Maybe I'm naïve. Maybe I'm an optimist. But I'm still going to adhere to the American system I've known and loved my whole life. Guys are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
Of course, Clark's comments went above and beyond suspicion. He flat-out accused Pujols of using PEDs, and the only "proof" he offered was a vague recollection of a conversation he had with a Cardinals trainer a decade ago. (He didn't even have that much to support his claims about Verlander.) Sadly, this is allowed to pass as "evidence" in today's society, at least when it comes to PEDs. The fact that Clark was dead wrong doesn't even seem to matter. He planted the seed in people's minds. Now, if Pujols ever does test positive for anything, we'll get the inevitable "I told you so" from all these new-found doubters.
The radio station is doing all the right things. They made the necessary move of showing Clark the door and, in an attempt to clean house, cancelled his show entirely. As a result, his co-host was also fired, although he's now saying that he'll sue the station, I'm guessing for wrongful termination (although that case has just as much a chance of being successful as the FanFest volunteer lawsuit). Regardless of what happens with that lawsuit, the station had no choice. They couldn't keep them on the air. Doing so would've implied they condone what Clark said.
I'm more interested in the lawsuit Pujols plans to file against Clark, though. It could be dangerous ground, as we found out with Roger Clemens vs. Brian McNamee, which is why some people are suggesting Pujols just let it go. But I also kind of admire the fact that he's willing to take a stand against this new "everybody's juicing" attitude. Slander is a very serious thing. Whether it can be legally proven (which is incredibly difficult) is another story altogether, but Jack Clark definitely slandered Albert Pujols' name. And the suspicion that he raised will now follow Pujols for the rest of his career.
We hear it all the time about players like Jose Bautista and Chris Davis, who came out of nowhere to suddenly become 40-home run guys and are immediately suspected of juicing as a result. But suspicion and direct accusations are completely different things.
Michael Kay addressed the topic during the Yankees-Tigers game on Saturday. Before becoming a broadcaster, Kay was a sportswriter. He was working for one of the New York newspapers during the McGwire-Sosa home run race in 1998. Kay told a story about how certain people had their suspicions back then, but no one really wanted to go near it. When people would ask him why nobody did, he pointed out that you couldn't just print something without any sort of proof because that's an immediate slander lawsuit.
That's the difference between what Jack Clark said and the Biogenesis situation. Yes, the Biogenesis stuff started because of a report in the Miami New Times. But that report was based on documents that were eventually turned over to MLB and led to the suspensions. And that evidence was obviously pretty strong, judging by how quickly Ryan Braun and most of the others accepted their bans. All Jack Clark did was drag Albert Pujols through the mud. Unlike Biogenesis, though, there's nothing to backup Clark's claims.
This has become our sad new reality. We can't just appreciate great players for being great. The stigma of steroids is inevitably attached to virtually everybody, even if it's just suspicion. Maybe I'm naïve. Maybe I'm an optimist. But I'm still going to adhere to the American system I've known and loved my whole life. Guys are innocent until proven guilty. Not the other way around.
Friday, August 9, 2013
World Championships Preview
In the lead-up to the World Track & Field Championships, which begin tomorrow in Moscow, all the news has been about who's not going to be there. For one reason or another, be it injuries or high-profile doping suspensions or murder trials, the biggest names from last year's Olympics in London, many of whom were going to be among the favorites, are out of the World Championships. As a result, a lot of what's going to happen is completely up in the air. And this unpredictability is somewhat refreshing.
Fortunately for the organizers, the biggest name in the sport is in Moscow and he's healthy. Usain Bolt IS track & field. Any meet will get its due attention as long as he's there. After his historic triple in Beijing, he went to Berlin for the World Championships the following year and repeated his brilliance. Then at the 2011 Worlds in Korea, he was disqualified in the final of the 100. So, as if he needed it, that gives him a little extra motivation heading into this year's World Championships. Thanks to repeating his Olympic feat in London, Bolt's place in history is already secure. In Moscow, he wants to further prove he's among the sport's all-time greats.
Bolt was originally expected to face a tough challenge in Moscow. But that was before Tyson Gay was hit with a drug suspension and Yohan Blake had to withdraw due to injury. That three-way duel would've been amazing to watch. As it is, Bolt's only real challenger now will likely be himself. That's OK, though. Because with Usain Bolt, anything is possible. I really have a feeling we're going to see something special in Moscow. Perhaps another world record three-peat.
As for Team USA, simply attending these World Championships is historic. With all these moronic suggestions that the U.S. should boycott the upcoming Sochi Olympics (I'm not sure what people think it would prove), it brings back the harsh reminder of the only other time the Olympics were in Russia--when the U.S. didn't go to the Summer Games in Moscow in 1980. It's a different time, but the historical significance of an American team finally competing in a major international sporting event on Russian soil, 33 years later, isn't lost on anybody. And the fact that it's in Moscow seems only fitting.
Like the Olympics, the Americans have traditionally been the dominant team at the World Championships. I don't expect that to change here. The U.S. has the largest and deepest team of everybody, and there are 206 countries competing. Some of the usual suspects are there, but there are a lot of newcomers getting their first World Championships experience. In fact, if I had to pick one word to describe Team USA, it would be "young." The U.S. Nationals were definitely a changing of the guard. I can't wait to see what they do on the world stage.
Some of these American youngsters can make a definite splash, too. The sensational Mary Cain, of course, has become a media darling. It's her first senior international meet. I'm curious to see how she does. Two Americans won high jump silvers in London--then went back to college. Well, Brigetta Barrett and Erik Kynard are both professionals now, and they've both got a chance of winning a World Championship.
Then there's Brenda Martinez, who's had a breakout season in the 800 meters. It wouldn't shock me at all if she left Moscow with a medal. Or if Georganne Moline, who finished fifth in London, does in the 400 hurdles (in that event, Zuzana Hejnova of the Czech Republic is one the biggest favorites of the Championships). Brianna Rollins went right from Clemson to the world lead in the women's 100 hurdles. Same thing with English Gardner in the 100. She left Oregon a year early because she had nothing left to prove collegiately. A medal at Worlds would further validate that decision. Ashley Spencer, who recently transferred from Illinois to Texas, won the 400 at World Juniors last year. Sanya Richards-Ross didn't make the team, so Spencer is the top American medal threat in that event.
Don't worry, I didn't forget about the men. Arman Hall just finished his freshman year at Florida. He made the team in the 400. The triple jump team consists exclusively of Gators, with Omar Craddock joining the Olympic gold and silver medalists Christian Taylor and Will Claye. Two of the decathletes--Jeremy Taiwo and Gunnar Nixon--are still in college, too. And it's not like Ashton Eaton is exactly what you'd consider "old" either.
This could also be the chance for some of the veterans to finally make their World Championships breakthroughs, as well. I'm not talking about the Allyson Felixes or Justin Gatlins or LaShawn Merritts. I'm talking Nick Symmonds. This might be his best chance to finally win a global medal in the 800. Same could be said for Shalane Flanagan. She won the bronze in the 10,000 in Beijing, and this might be her best chance to do it (or more) again. Galen Rupp won the silver in the 10,000 last year. Can he do it again? The same question can be asked about Matt Centrowitz, the surprise bronze medalist in the 1500 in 2011, and Jenny Simpson, who shocked everyone by winning the World Championship in the 1500 two years ago. Likewise, Jenn Suhr, who's never been a World Champion, won the gold in the women's pole vault in London, but she's going against the queen of the event, hometown favorite Yelena Isinbayeva, who's announced she's retiring after Moscow.
All these injuries and withdrawals have made these World Championships so unpredictable that it's difficult to even pick favorites in some events. Which I think only guarantees one thing. We're going to witness one hell of a track meet over the next nine days.
Fortunately for the organizers, the biggest name in the sport is in Moscow and he's healthy. Usain Bolt IS track & field. Any meet will get its due attention as long as he's there. After his historic triple in Beijing, he went to Berlin for the World Championships the following year and repeated his brilliance. Then at the 2011 Worlds in Korea, he was disqualified in the final of the 100. So, as if he needed it, that gives him a little extra motivation heading into this year's World Championships. Thanks to repeating his Olympic feat in London, Bolt's place in history is already secure. In Moscow, he wants to further prove he's among the sport's all-time greats.
Bolt was originally expected to face a tough challenge in Moscow. But that was before Tyson Gay was hit with a drug suspension and Yohan Blake had to withdraw due to injury. That three-way duel would've been amazing to watch. As it is, Bolt's only real challenger now will likely be himself. That's OK, though. Because with Usain Bolt, anything is possible. I really have a feeling we're going to see something special in Moscow. Perhaps another world record three-peat.
As for Team USA, simply attending these World Championships is historic. With all these moronic suggestions that the U.S. should boycott the upcoming Sochi Olympics (I'm not sure what people think it would prove), it brings back the harsh reminder of the only other time the Olympics were in Russia--when the U.S. didn't go to the Summer Games in Moscow in 1980. It's a different time, but the historical significance of an American team finally competing in a major international sporting event on Russian soil, 33 years later, isn't lost on anybody. And the fact that it's in Moscow seems only fitting.
Like the Olympics, the Americans have traditionally been the dominant team at the World Championships. I don't expect that to change here. The U.S. has the largest and deepest team of everybody, and there are 206 countries competing. Some of the usual suspects are there, but there are a lot of newcomers getting their first World Championships experience. In fact, if I had to pick one word to describe Team USA, it would be "young." The U.S. Nationals were definitely a changing of the guard. I can't wait to see what they do on the world stage.
Some of these American youngsters can make a definite splash, too. The sensational Mary Cain, of course, has become a media darling. It's her first senior international meet. I'm curious to see how she does. Two Americans won high jump silvers in London--then went back to college. Well, Brigetta Barrett and Erik Kynard are both professionals now, and they've both got a chance of winning a World Championship.
Then there's Brenda Martinez, who's had a breakout season in the 800 meters. It wouldn't shock me at all if she left Moscow with a medal. Or if Georganne Moline, who finished fifth in London, does in the 400 hurdles (in that event, Zuzana Hejnova of the Czech Republic is one the biggest favorites of the Championships). Brianna Rollins went right from Clemson to the world lead in the women's 100 hurdles. Same thing with English Gardner in the 100. She left Oregon a year early because she had nothing left to prove collegiately. A medal at Worlds would further validate that decision. Ashley Spencer, who recently transferred from Illinois to Texas, won the 400 at World Juniors last year. Sanya Richards-Ross didn't make the team, so Spencer is the top American medal threat in that event.
Don't worry, I didn't forget about the men. Arman Hall just finished his freshman year at Florida. He made the team in the 400. The triple jump team consists exclusively of Gators, with Omar Craddock joining the Olympic gold and silver medalists Christian Taylor and Will Claye. Two of the decathletes--Jeremy Taiwo and Gunnar Nixon--are still in college, too. And it's not like Ashton Eaton is exactly what you'd consider "old" either.
This could also be the chance for some of the veterans to finally make their World Championships breakthroughs, as well. I'm not talking about the Allyson Felixes or Justin Gatlins or LaShawn Merritts. I'm talking Nick Symmonds. This might be his best chance to finally win a global medal in the 800. Same could be said for Shalane Flanagan. She won the bronze in the 10,000 in Beijing, and this might be her best chance to do it (or more) again. Galen Rupp won the silver in the 10,000 last year. Can he do it again? The same question can be asked about Matt Centrowitz, the surprise bronze medalist in the 1500 in 2011, and Jenny Simpson, who shocked everyone by winning the World Championship in the 1500 two years ago. Likewise, Jenn Suhr, who's never been a World Champion, won the gold in the women's pole vault in London, but she's going against the queen of the event, hometown favorite Yelena Isinbayeva, who's announced she's retiring after Moscow.
All these injuries and withdrawals have made these World Championships so unpredictable that it's difficult to even pick favorites in some events. Which I think only guarantees one thing. We're going to witness one hell of a track meet over the next nine days.
Wednesday, August 7, 2013
Paid Volunteers?
What is this country coming to? You want to talk about frivolous lawsuits, I've got the one that might take the cake. A guy who, like me, volunteered at All*Star FanFest last month sued MLB today because he wasn't paid for working the event. The key word here is volunteer!
Since this guy clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word "volunteer," here's the definition straight from dictionary.com (pay particular attention to No. 2):
Since this guy clearly doesn't understand the meaning of the word "volunteer," here's the definition straight from dictionary.com (pay particular attention to No. 2):
vol·un·teer
[vol-uhn-teer]
noun
1. a person who voluntarily offers himself or herself for a service or undertaking.
2. a person who performs a service willingly and without pay.
3. Military. a person who enters the service voluntarily rather than through conscription or draft, especially for special or temporary service rather than as a member of the regular or permanent army.
4. Law. a. a person whose actions are not founded on any legal obligation so to act.
b. a person who intrudes into a matter that does not concern him or her, as a person who pays the debt of another where he or she is neither legally nor morally bound to do so and has no interest to protect in making the payment.
5. Agriculture. a volunteer plant.
I'm not exactly sure what this guy thought he was getting into, but as a fellow volunteer (whose done it twice), I'm embarrassed for the entire remainder of our group. This guy doesn't care if any of us get paid. He just wants it for himself. And that's even more wrong than the fact that he filed the lawsuit in the first place.
Every detail that he lists as a complaint in the suit is something that MLB made very clear well before FanFest started. Everyone was required to pass a background test. Yeah, so? Sorry they didn't want people with criminal records helping out. Everyone was required to attend a mandatory orientation. Again, that's a problem why? Volunteers weren't given admission to the All*Star events, but had a chance to win tickets to the game. One of the first things they say at that orientation is that no volunteers are needed at the stadium on the day of the Home Run Derby or All*Star Game. Armed with that knowledge, what did you expect? To play in the game?
Now on to the part that bothers me the most: that MLB recruited these volunteers and that's why we should've been paid. That's not why I volunteered. I wanted to be a part of the All*Star festivities, and this was a fun way to do it. Instead of paying $35 to go to FanFest, I got to go for free as often as I wanted. All I had to do was donate a couple hours of my time three times that weekend. Not a bad deal if you ask me. Or, most likely, if you ask any of the other volunteers, save one. And to him I ask, "Why did you volunteer then?" They made it pretty clear that we weren't getting paid. If you wanted some sort of compensation other than what we got, you shouldn't have volunteered then.
As for the claim that MLB should stop recruiting volunteers to staff these massive events, get with the program! All of these major events rely on a volunteer workforce. And every single one of those volunteers knows exactly what they're signing up for, yet do it without a second thought. The reasons for doing that are many, but the thought of compensation isn't one. Do you think any of the thousands of volunteers at last year's Olympics wanted anything other than to be a part of that once-in-a-lifetime experience?
He also made a point of mentioning the ridiculous prices for food/beverages/merchandise, as if that's remotely relevant. All that proves is that when you have a captive audience, you can get away with charging whatever you want and people will still pay it. This just in, the prices at sporting venues where games are actually being played are just as high.
The last point highlighted in the suit that I want to touch on is the opportunity volunteers have to automatically work FanFest again at subsequent All*Star Games. Since I volunteered in 2008, the process was a lot easier for me this time than it was for first-time volunteers. This point was made at the volunteer orientation. If you want to work in Minnesota next year, all you have to do is sign up once they start the process in January. But they also said that they're not paying for anything. If you want to go to Minnesota, it's on you to get there and take care of all your expenses while in the Twin Cities. MLB couldn't be more clear about that. Their expectation is that they won't have many returning volunteers, but there will probably be some. During one of my shifts, I was talking to a guy who helped out at FanFest last year in Kansas City.
This entire thing is ridiculous, and I think any judge in his/her right mind will throw it out immediately and try to keep from laughing while doing so. But if it somehow does go to trial, I'll gladly volunteer for MLB once again. I would love to go on the witness stand and explain why I volunteered. Twice. I almost want to go face-to-face with this guy and defend the process. They don't even need to pay me.
Monday, August 5, 2013
It Still Drags On
Is it just me, or has the Biogenesis saga sucked the life out of the entire baseball season? They've spent more time on TV/radio/newspapers/the internet talking about it that you'd think it's the offseason and there was nothing else going on. (Either that or that Tim Tebow was somehow involved.) Well, today they finally announced the suspensions--50-game bans for 12 different players that will pretty much take up the remainder of the regular season while making those guys eligible for the playoffs. There's of course one exception. A-Rod. The guy who's gotten more publicity for not playing than possibly anybody in history (except for maybe a certain "quarterback").
As expected, A-Rod received the harshest penalty. He was banned through the end of next season. A total of 211 games (which could theoretically be longer, since it mentions nothing about the 2014 postseason). He has predictably decided to appeal and is eligible to play until that appeal is heard. That probably won't be until after the season, so A-Rod's basically got an eight-week stay of execution. And those eight weeks might also end up representing the last eight weeks of his career.
Think what you want about A-Rod, who's been Public Enemy No. 1 (fairly or unfairly) for longer than anyone can remember. Most of what was said by fans about A-Rod's pending punishment was that he deserved a lifetime ban. This, of course, is without any knowledge of what evidence MLB has against him. Rather, it was people wanting a life ban simply because they don't like A-Rod. Well, it doesn't work that way. The Commissioner knew a life ban would never hold up in arbitration, so he didn't seek out one. Instead, he gave A-Rod 211 games. Now it's up to the arbitrator to decide how many of those 211 he'll actually have to serve.
The most surreal part of this whole situation is that the suspensions were announced on the same day A-Rod finally made his 2013 season debut. He gave a press conference prior to the Yankees' game in Chicago that was awkward and uncomfortable, yet still better than any of his ill-advised comments made to the media before he rejoined the team. A-Rod didn't admit that he used PEDs, but he didn't deny it either (which is basically an admission of guilt). He didn't completely dodge the topic, though.
Now, I'm not saying A-Rod didn't deserve to be suspended. I don't think he is either. The whole basis of his appeal is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. His suspension is more than four times that of the standard first-positive (which is what the other 12 guys suspended today got) and more than three times that of Ryan Braun, the other big fish hooked in this scandal. Bud Selig clearly wanted to make an example of him. Everybody knew that going in. But A-Rod's argument that Selig overstepped his authority isn't entirely off-base.
From what everybody with knowledge of the situation was saying, the lifetime ban threat was just posturing, and the suspension announced today was roughly the expected length. That doesn't mean there wasn't a middle ground that could've been reached had the two sides decided to negotiate. (The two sides can play the blame game all they want, but the bottom line is if they had actually wanted to, they probably could've found a common ground.) So instead, those negotiations will now take place in front of an arbitrator.
I still think there's a middle ground that can be found. Especially if the appeal isn't heard until November, it's all but inevitable that number will be reduced. The question then becomes, "What's a fair number?", which I think is the whole basis of A-Rod's appeal. The number I'd throw out there as reasonable is 150. You get 50 for the first offense and 100 for the second. Treat it as two positives, put them back-to-back and there you go. If they wanted to make it 162 so that it covers a full season, that's fine, since he obviously wouldn't be activated to only play 12 games at the end of the season. Ultimately, I think that's what it'll be. Let him play through his appeal, then suspend him for the entire 2014 season.
Today is both a good day and a bad day for baseball. But sadly, it doesn't even come anywhere close to putting an end to all this Biogenesis nonsense. That's not going to happen until A-Rod's suspension is over. Which means we're not going to have this behind us for a while. At least not until the end of the 2014 season.
As expected, A-Rod received the harshest penalty. He was banned through the end of next season. A total of 211 games (which could theoretically be longer, since it mentions nothing about the 2014 postseason). He has predictably decided to appeal and is eligible to play until that appeal is heard. That probably won't be until after the season, so A-Rod's basically got an eight-week stay of execution. And those eight weeks might also end up representing the last eight weeks of his career.
Think what you want about A-Rod, who's been Public Enemy No. 1 (fairly or unfairly) for longer than anyone can remember. Most of what was said by fans about A-Rod's pending punishment was that he deserved a lifetime ban. This, of course, is without any knowledge of what evidence MLB has against him. Rather, it was people wanting a life ban simply because they don't like A-Rod. Well, it doesn't work that way. The Commissioner knew a life ban would never hold up in arbitration, so he didn't seek out one. Instead, he gave A-Rod 211 games. Now it's up to the arbitrator to decide how many of those 211 he'll actually have to serve.
The most surreal part of this whole situation is that the suspensions were announced on the same day A-Rod finally made his 2013 season debut. He gave a press conference prior to the Yankees' game in Chicago that was awkward and uncomfortable, yet still better than any of his ill-advised comments made to the media before he rejoined the team. A-Rod didn't admit that he used PEDs, but he didn't deny it either (which is basically an admission of guilt). He didn't completely dodge the topic, though.
Now, I'm not saying A-Rod didn't deserve to be suspended. I don't think he is either. The whole basis of his appeal is that the punishment doesn't fit the crime. His suspension is more than four times that of the standard first-positive (which is what the other 12 guys suspended today got) and more than three times that of Ryan Braun, the other big fish hooked in this scandal. Bud Selig clearly wanted to make an example of him. Everybody knew that going in. But A-Rod's argument that Selig overstepped his authority isn't entirely off-base.
From what everybody with knowledge of the situation was saying, the lifetime ban threat was just posturing, and the suspension announced today was roughly the expected length. That doesn't mean there wasn't a middle ground that could've been reached had the two sides decided to negotiate. (The two sides can play the blame game all they want, but the bottom line is if they had actually wanted to, they probably could've found a common ground.) So instead, those negotiations will now take place in front of an arbitrator.
I still think there's a middle ground that can be found. Especially if the appeal isn't heard until November, it's all but inevitable that number will be reduced. The question then becomes, "What's a fair number?", which I think is the whole basis of A-Rod's appeal. The number I'd throw out there as reasonable is 150. You get 50 for the first offense and 100 for the second. Treat it as two positives, put them back-to-back and there you go. If they wanted to make it 162 so that it covers a full season, that's fine, since he obviously wouldn't be activated to only play 12 games at the end of the season. Ultimately, I think that's what it'll be. Let him play through his appeal, then suspend him for the entire 2014 season.
Today is both a good day and a bad day for baseball. But sadly, it doesn't even come anywhere close to putting an end to all this Biogenesis nonsense. That's not going to happen until A-Rod's suspension is over. Which means we're not going to have this behind us for a while. At least not until the end of the 2014 season.
Saturday, August 3, 2013
Pro Football Hall of Fame All-Time Team
As part of the 50th Anniversary celebration of the Pro Football Hall of Fame, they had a best-of-the-best vote, an All-Time Team comprised exclusively of Hall of Famers. They originally announced it back in February, but it was quickly overshadowed by the selection announcement and, of course, the Super Bowl. I had pretty much completely forgotten about it until they put up an ad during the enshrinement ceremony.
Since this team was been official for quite some time, there's really no point in revealing what my votes would've been. Instead, I'll break down the selections. I agree with most of them. It's a veritable "Who's Who" of football history. These were the obvious names that immediately come to mind when you think of the greatest ever at a given position. I also really like the way they set it up. You picked 11 offense, 11 defense, a kicker and a coach--just like a normal game. (No punter, since it's evidently not a position, seeing as they inexplicably still haven't put Ray Guy in.)
QB: Joe Montana-The way I see it, there were only three choices at quarterback. The first is Johnny Unitas, the original gold standard at the position. Then there's Terry Bradshaw, who won four Super Bowls in six years. But Joe Montana does seem to be the right choice. Not only did the 49ers win the Super Bowl four times in the 80s, he was the MVP of three of those games. Montana was the architect of that dynasty, and I've always thought he was the greatest quarterback of all-time.
RB: Jim Brown, Walter Payton-Absolutely no problem with these two choices. The only other guy who even belongs in the same league is Emmitt Smith, and I'd maybe give you a Marcus Allen or an Eric Dickerson, but none of those three comes even close to touching Jim Brown or Walter Payton. To this day you still hear people talking about how amazing Jim Brown was, and Walter Payton is one of the best players the NFL has ever seen. He was also one of the greatest gentlemen ever to play the game.
WR: Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin-One of these selections was incredibly obvious. The short list of greatest wide receivers of all-time consists of Jerry Rice and Jerry Rice. I somewhat question the selection of Michael Irvin, though. No question he was great, but part of his greatness was as a part of the "Triplets" with fellow Hall of Famers Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith. I'd probably have gone with Lynn Swann instead.
TE: Mike Ditka-The tight end selection in the Hall of Fame is pretty limited, but I think this was pretty clear also. Mike Ditka has long been considered the greatest tight end in NFL history. With all due respect to Kellen Winslow, who turned the position into what it is today and would really be the only other guy worth discussing, that's no different today.
OL: Anthony Munoz, Dan Dierdorf, Bruce Matthews, Gene Upshaw, Jim Otto-Four out of the five are right on. Otto's the center. Upshaw is the only true guard in the group, with Matthews, who played everywhere on the line, as the other guard, and Munoz and Dierdorf at tackle. I personally prefer Jackie Slater over Anthony Munoz, but they're really interchangeable, so I have no issue with Munoz being the selection. I wouldn't have picked Dierdorf, though. That's probably because of his popularity as a broadcaster, but is he one of the five best offensive linemen in NFL history? No, I don't think so. I'd move Matthews over to tackle and give Larry Allen the nod at guard. Since Allen wasn't a Hall of Famer yet when they conducted the voting, he wasn't eligible, but the next time they do one of these teams (like the 100th Anniversary All-Time Team in a couple years), there's no doubt in my mind he'll be on it.
DE: Reggie White, Howie Long-Like Jerry Rice, Reggie White falls into the "Duh!" category. Howie Long, though? Great? Yes. Greatest of all-time? Definitely not. Another one who gained votes because of his popularity on TV, I think. Without question, it should've been Deacon Jones. The sack stat was invented because of this guy. In other words, he basically redefined the defensive end position. Or if not Grier, Bruce Smith, the all-time leader in said category and the anchor of the defense on that Bills team that went to four straight Super Bowls in the early 90s.
DT: Joe Greene, Merlin Olsen-Jones should've been selected, but at least the Rams' "Fearsome Foursome" was represented by Merlin Olsen. Mean Joe Greene is one of the greatest defensive players in history, and he was the star of one of the greatest Super Bowl commercials ever. He's in a class by himself when it comes to Hall of Fame interior linemen. I'm fine with Merlin Olsen as the other choice.
LB: Lawrence Taylor, Dick Butkus, Jack Lambert-I don't know if they did this on purpose, but they ended up with two outside linebackers and one middle linebacker. And of all the great linebackers in NFL history, these three stand above them all. LT changed the game. He's one of the first names that comes to mind when discussing the greatest players of all-time, regardless of position. Same with Dick Butkus, the first of the great Bears middle linebackers. Jack Lambert was a scary dude on the Steel Curtain defense, and arguably just as valuable as Mean Joe Greene.
CB: Deion Sanders, Darrell Green-Bravo on these selections as well. Deion Sanders is kind of like a football version of Rickey Henderson. So great on so many levels that it doesn't really seem fair. What couldn't he do? Darrell Green's longevity was remarkable. He played almost 20 years in the NFL and was just as productive at the end of his career as he was at the beginning.
S: Ronnie Lott, Rod Woodson-Woodson is kind of cheating. He was a cornerback for most of his career until they moved him to safety later on. But the safety selection is somewhat limited, and he put in enough time at the position that I'm OK with him being there as a safety. The other safety was a no-brainer. Without question, Ronnie Lott was the greatest to ever play the position.
K: George Blanda-OK. This is where I take some issue. Nothing against George Blanda, but he was a quarterback who also happened to do the kicking. The only kicker (in fact, the only special teamer) in the Hall of Fame is Jan Stenerud. There's a reason for that. It's a joke that the only kicker in the Hall of Fame isn't the kicker on the Hall of Fame's All-Time Team.
Coach: Vince Lombardi-He's always been and always will be the gold standard. Others may have more wins or won more Super Bowls, but no one is as revered as the great Vince Lombardi. They named the Super Bowl championship trophy after him for cryin' out loud! It would've been an absolute shock to see somebody else listed as the coach for this team.
Since this team was been official for quite some time, there's really no point in revealing what my votes would've been. Instead, I'll break down the selections. I agree with most of them. It's a veritable "Who's Who" of football history. These were the obvious names that immediately come to mind when you think of the greatest ever at a given position. I also really like the way they set it up. You picked 11 offense, 11 defense, a kicker and a coach--just like a normal game. (No punter, since it's evidently not a position, seeing as they inexplicably still haven't put Ray Guy in.)
QB: Joe Montana-The way I see it, there were only three choices at quarterback. The first is Johnny Unitas, the original gold standard at the position. Then there's Terry Bradshaw, who won four Super Bowls in six years. But Joe Montana does seem to be the right choice. Not only did the 49ers win the Super Bowl four times in the 80s, he was the MVP of three of those games. Montana was the architect of that dynasty, and I've always thought he was the greatest quarterback of all-time.
RB: Jim Brown, Walter Payton-Absolutely no problem with these two choices. The only other guy who even belongs in the same league is Emmitt Smith, and I'd maybe give you a Marcus Allen or an Eric Dickerson, but none of those three comes even close to touching Jim Brown or Walter Payton. To this day you still hear people talking about how amazing Jim Brown was, and Walter Payton is one of the best players the NFL has ever seen. He was also one of the greatest gentlemen ever to play the game.
WR: Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin-One of these selections was incredibly obvious. The short list of greatest wide receivers of all-time consists of Jerry Rice and Jerry Rice. I somewhat question the selection of Michael Irvin, though. No question he was great, but part of his greatness was as a part of the "Triplets" with fellow Hall of Famers Troy Aikman and Emmitt Smith. I'd probably have gone with Lynn Swann instead.
TE: Mike Ditka-The tight end selection in the Hall of Fame is pretty limited, but I think this was pretty clear also. Mike Ditka has long been considered the greatest tight end in NFL history. With all due respect to Kellen Winslow, who turned the position into what it is today and would really be the only other guy worth discussing, that's no different today.
OL: Anthony Munoz, Dan Dierdorf, Bruce Matthews, Gene Upshaw, Jim Otto-Four out of the five are right on. Otto's the center. Upshaw is the only true guard in the group, with Matthews, who played everywhere on the line, as the other guard, and Munoz and Dierdorf at tackle. I personally prefer Jackie Slater over Anthony Munoz, but they're really interchangeable, so I have no issue with Munoz being the selection. I wouldn't have picked Dierdorf, though. That's probably because of his popularity as a broadcaster, but is he one of the five best offensive linemen in NFL history? No, I don't think so. I'd move Matthews over to tackle and give Larry Allen the nod at guard. Since Allen wasn't a Hall of Famer yet when they conducted the voting, he wasn't eligible, but the next time they do one of these teams (like the 100th Anniversary All-Time Team in a couple years), there's no doubt in my mind he'll be on it.
DE: Reggie White, Howie Long-Like Jerry Rice, Reggie White falls into the "Duh!" category. Howie Long, though? Great? Yes. Greatest of all-time? Definitely not. Another one who gained votes because of his popularity on TV, I think. Without question, it should've been Deacon Jones. The sack stat was invented because of this guy. In other words, he basically redefined the defensive end position. Or if not Grier, Bruce Smith, the all-time leader in said category and the anchor of the defense on that Bills team that went to four straight Super Bowls in the early 90s.
DT: Joe Greene, Merlin Olsen-Jones should've been selected, but at least the Rams' "Fearsome Foursome" was represented by Merlin Olsen. Mean Joe Greene is one of the greatest defensive players in history, and he was the star of one of the greatest Super Bowl commercials ever. He's in a class by himself when it comes to Hall of Fame interior linemen. I'm fine with Merlin Olsen as the other choice.
LB: Lawrence Taylor, Dick Butkus, Jack Lambert-I don't know if they did this on purpose, but they ended up with two outside linebackers and one middle linebacker. And of all the great linebackers in NFL history, these three stand above them all. LT changed the game. He's one of the first names that comes to mind when discussing the greatest players of all-time, regardless of position. Same with Dick Butkus, the first of the great Bears middle linebackers. Jack Lambert was a scary dude on the Steel Curtain defense, and arguably just as valuable as Mean Joe Greene.
CB: Deion Sanders, Darrell Green-Bravo on these selections as well. Deion Sanders is kind of like a football version of Rickey Henderson. So great on so many levels that it doesn't really seem fair. What couldn't he do? Darrell Green's longevity was remarkable. He played almost 20 years in the NFL and was just as productive at the end of his career as he was at the beginning.
S: Ronnie Lott, Rod Woodson-Woodson is kind of cheating. He was a cornerback for most of his career until they moved him to safety later on. But the safety selection is somewhat limited, and he put in enough time at the position that I'm OK with him being there as a safety. The other safety was a no-brainer. Without question, Ronnie Lott was the greatest to ever play the position.
K: George Blanda-OK. This is where I take some issue. Nothing against George Blanda, but he was a quarterback who also happened to do the kicking. The only kicker (in fact, the only special teamer) in the Hall of Fame is Jan Stenerud. There's a reason for that. It's a joke that the only kicker in the Hall of Fame isn't the kicker on the Hall of Fame's All-Time Team.
Coach: Vince Lombardi-He's always been and always will be the gold standard. Others may have more wins or won more Super Bowls, but no one is as revered as the great Vince Lombardi. They named the Super Bowl championship trophy after him for cryin' out loud! It would've been an absolute shock to see somebody else listed as the coach for this team.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)