This Year's First-Timers

The Baseball Hall of Fame ballot is out, and, just as anticipated, it's loaded.  That's what happens when you have a ton of holdovers from last year's ballot that was just as loaded, yet didn't yield any new Hall of Famers, and you add a bunch of guys who are in that same category.  It also means that there are some marginal candidates who would otherwise be worthy of a longer discussion that might not even get the five percent necessary to stay on the ballot.  (Voters are limited to 10, and I can easily think of 15 candidates on this ballot that I would vote for.)

I've got a month to think about the 10 I'm going to "vote" for in that annual post, but I thought it might be fun with this post to look at the 20 first-time eligible candidates and their chances for eventual induction.

Let's start with the "No Chance In Hell" category.  I'm not even sure why some of these guys are on the ballot (although someone did vote for Aaron Sele last year).  Especially with some of the holdovers that voters won't be able to vote for this year, I'd be surprised to see anybody in this group get to one percent, let alone the required five to stay on the ballot.  The members of this group are:

• Armando Benitez: Doesn't even belong in the Mets Hall of Fame
• Sean Casey: Who actually had a pretty decent career
• Ray Durham: Wasn't even considered that good when he was playing
• Eric Gagne: Did nothing before or after that 82-straight successful save opportunity streak, which also probably had something to do with PEDs
• Jacque Jones: Did anyone even notice he stopped playing?
• Todd Jones: Biggest claim to fame is getting the final out at Tiger Stadium
• Paul Lo Duca: A poor man's Mike Piazza
• Richie Sexson: Hasn't hit a home run at Yankee Stadium in five years
• J.T. Snow: Prevented Darren Baker from getting run over during the 2002 World Series
• Mike Timlin: In contention with Benitez, Durham and Jacque Jones for the "Why is he on the ballot?" Award

Then there's the "I Hope They Get At Least One More Year" group...

• Moises Alou: Exactly the type of player I'm worried will get knocked off, even though he shouldn't because of how stacked the overall ballot is.  He's not a Hall of Famer and never will be, but should also be more than a one-and-done.
• Luis Gonzalez: He's probably going to hang around the ballot for all 15 years.  All because of that bloop hit off Mariano Rivera in Game 7 of the 2001 World Series.
• Jeff Kent: This is Steve Garvey-Dale Murphy-Don Mattingly territory.  One of the top players at his position during his era, but not good enough for his own plaque in Cooperstown.
• Hideo Nomo: The first one in this generation of Japanese players who've come over and been successful in the Majors.  Not a Hall of Famer, but should be rewarded for being the pioneer he is.
• Kenny Rogers: Started an All-Star Game, pitched a perfect game, won a World Series and pitched in another (although Mets fans would be quick to point out he also walked in the winning run of the 1999 NLCS).

Only two guys fall into this next category, the "Close, but Not Quites"...

• Mike Mussina: This is a borderline Hall of Fame case if there ever was one.  He pitched 18 years (all in the AL East) and won 270 games.  Mussina had at least 15 wins 11 times, and won 20 for the only time in his final season (2008).  Then there's the five All-Star teams, seven Gold Gloves, and eight years with Cy Young votes.  He's sixth all-time in winning percentage among pitchers with at least 250 wins, but would have the second-highest ERA among Hall of Fame pitchers.  Jim Kaat and Tommy John were on the ballot for all 15 years and still aren't in, and Jack Morris is in his 15th.  Mussina's wait will probably be just as long.
• Sammy Sosa: If you ask me, Sammy Sosa's a Hall of Famer.  PEDs or no PEDs, 609 homers are 609 homers.  And he has almost as many 60-homer seasons himself (three) as all others in Major League history combined (four).  But just like his Steroid Era contemporaries, Sosa's not going to get in.  His vote total will probably be comparable to what McGwire and Palmeiro have been receiving ever since they first appeared on the ballot.  Which won't help the ballot backlog problem.

Our final group is three men who I have no doubt will be elected.  The only question I have is how many of the three will be elected this year (one is a lock) and whether anyone else will join him/them (these three will be ranked in order, rather than alphabetically)...

• Greg Maddux: There's nothing about Greg Maddux that's not a Hall of Famer.  There's never been a unanimous selection, and I'm sure he won't be either (although anybody who ever saw him pitch and doesn't think he belongs in the Hall of Fame needs to have their head examined).  It would get redundant to start spewing off stats, but two stand out as the biggest proof of his greatness: 17 consecutive 15-win seasons and 18 Gold Gloves.  And the 355 wins.  And the four straight Cy Youngs.  There is no doubt in my mind that Greg Maddux will be giving a speech in Cooperstown come July.
• Frank Thomas: It's such a shame that the Big Hurt's only World Series ring came when he was injured and unable to play.  He played in an era of superstar sluggers, many of whom have since been tainted by steroid admissions or accusations.  Not so with Thomas.  He was outspoken in his criticism of PED users and was never even suspected himself.  All he did was mash.  Back-to-back MVPs.  521 home runs.  All of it clean.  He and Ken Griffey, Jr., are the only 90s superstars who you can say that about with certainty.  Maybe not a first-timer, but definitely getting elected sometime soon.
• Tom Glavine: There are some idiots out there who don't think Tom Glavine's a Hall of Famer.  How great was he in the 1995 World Series, when the Braves finally won their title?  But that's only the tip of the iceberg.  The Braves teams of the 90s were dominant because of those three pitchers.  Everybody knows it.  And to think they would've done it without all three is asinine.  Was Glavine as good as Maddux?  No.  Does that mean he's not a Hall of Famer?  Absolutely not!  It would be great if they went in together, but I can understand if they want to make Glavine wait a year.  Because there is a difference between "Hall of Famer" and "first-ballot Hall of Famer."  Besides, Smoltz is eligible for the first time next year.

As for the other seven guys I'd vote for, that's going to take some thinking.  Fortunately, I've got a month to think about it.

Week 13 NFL Picks

Thanksgiving's tomorrow, which means we've got our traditional Detroit/Dallas doubleheader, followed by the Ravens home game that they weren't able to play in Week 1.  And it means that we're finally done with byes and have a full 16-game slate.  It also means that, with three games on Thursday instead of one, I'm posting the picks early this week.  Next week, I'll go back to a Saturday night posting (especially since the Thursday night game next week is Houston-Jacksonville).

Packers (5-5-1) at Lions (6-5): Detroit-Even though the Packers and Vikings played each other, nobody in the NFC North won last week.  Which makes this semi-annual Thanksgiving matchup all the more important.  Green Bay can actually take a half-game lead in the division with a win.  But they haven't shown the ability to do that at all without Aaron Rodgers.  They need him back badly.  It's the Lions that hold the tiebreaker and are technically in first place right now.  It's rare that Detroit's a favorite on Thanksgiving, but that's certainly the case this year.  At 7-5, they'll still be in control of the division race.

Raiders (4-7) at Cowboys (6-5): Dallas-NFL, the Cowboys' only two home games against AFC teams this year, and thus the only two opponents available for them to play on Thanksgiving, were Denver and Oakland.  The choice seemed obvious.  So why, in God's name, are we being subjected to the Oakland Raiders on Thanksgiving!?  We'll get to see exactly how bad the Raiders really are, as the first-place Cowboys actually move two games over .500.  (FYI, Detroit's AFC home games next year are against Buffalo and Miami.)

Steelers (5-6) at Ravens (5-6): Baltimore-As a consolation for not being able to host the opening game, the Ravens get the Thanksgiving primetime game against their biggest rivals.  And it's a huge game!  After that start, who would've thought Pittsburgh would be right back in the playoff race.  You've got to think this is essentially an elimination game.  The loser will be 5-7 and only one game out of a wild card, but have way too many teams to pass.  The winner, meanwhile, still has a realistic shot at the division.  After the mess that came with the opener and eventually getting slaughtered in Denver, the Ravens are out to redeem themselves for that performance.  I think they will.

Jaguars (2-9) at Browns (4-7): Cleveland-Because the bad teams have to play somebody, too, so why not play each other?  Although, believe it or not, the Jaguars technically aren't in last place anymore!  Both of Jacksonville's wins have come on the road, but those were both in division games.  Cleveland's a little colder than Houston.

Titans (5-6) at Colts (7-4): Indianapolis-So maybe Indianapolis isn't as good as they would like us to believe.  Bruce Arians was NFL Coach of the Year as a Colts assistant last season, and he made his former team look silly as head coach of the Cardinals last week.  These two played just two weeks ago on a Thursday night in Nashville, and the Colts came away with a 30-27 victory.  It'll be another close one, but the result will likely be the same.

Bears (6-5) at Vikings (2-8-1): Chicago-I officially don't know what to make of the Chicago Bears.  Every time I think they're the best team in the NFC North, they play like the overrated bunch of posers their critics are quick to label them.  Take last week for example.  42-21?  Against the Rams!?  With that being said, it's entirely possible they could lose this game against the Vikings, even though they shouldn't.

Dolphins (5-6) at Jets (5-6): Miami-The Jets have stopped their alternating wins and losses thing, dropping two straight.  They're a much better team at home, though.  They've beaten both New England and New Orleans at the Meadowlands.  And this is actually a huge game between two of the six! 5-6 teams in the AFC.  It's also the first meeting of the season between hated division rivals.  I like the way Miami's playing better than the Jets are right now.

Cardinals (7-4) at Eagles (6-5): Arizona-The NFC wild card teams are going to be Carolina and Arizona, aren't they?  The Panthers are the hottest team in football, but Arizona's not too far behind.  Four straight wins.  The Eagles have won three straight themselves and are tied for first in the NFC East.  Something's gotta give in this Bird Bowl a few days after Turkey Day.  Just like the NFC Championship Game five years ago, the Cardinals beat the Eagles.

Buccaneers (3-9) at Panthers (8-3): Carolina-Remember when Tampa Bay was still the only winless team in football?  It wasn't that long ago.  In fact, it was just three weeks ago.  The Bucs' three-game winning streak, though, will be halted by a red-hot Carolina team that will, incredibly, be playing for first place in New Orleans next Sunday night.

Patriots (8-3) at Texans (2-9): New England-That was impressive last week.  I thought New England would win, but not like that.  Incredible.  It's also incredible how badly Houston has fallen after back-to-back division titles.  Nine losses in a row including one, inexplicably, at home to Jacksonville.  It's like Peyton-less Indianapolis two years ago.  Make it 10 straight losses for the Texans.

Falcons (2-9) vs. Bills (4-7): Buffalo-Ditto about the Atlanta Falcons.  Five straight losses for my preseason Super Bowl pick.  Now they head to Toronto for the Bills' annual "home" game North of the Border.  Unlike last year, when they got absolutely obliterated by Seattle, Buffalo might actually have the home field advantage at SkyDome this year.  The Falcons are just too bad right now.

Rams (5-6) at 49ers (7-4): San Francisco-The Rams didn't lose to the 49ers last season, notching a win and a tie in the two games.  But, alas, they did lose the first meeting of this season in St. Louis in Week 4.  The 49ers are going to need to beat them again in order to keep pace in the NFC playoff race.  After going to the Super Bowl last season, they're currently on the outside looking in, and Carolina owns the head-to-head tiebreaker.  A loss here would be devastating for San Francisco.

Broncos (9-2) at Chiefs (9-2): Denver-As Al Michaels correctly pointed out at the end of the Broncos-Patriots game last week, that result meant as much to Kansas City as anybody else.  Before they played two weeks ago, the Chiefs were undefeated and the Broncos were looking up at them.  Now Kansas City has lost two straight, and needs to win this one to avoid Denver clinching the tiebreaker.  At Arrowhead, it's going to be closer than it was two weeks ago.  But the Broncos know the importance of this game.  I don't see them losing.

Bengals (7-4) at Chargers (5-6): Cincinnati-With Giants-Redskins as the Sunday night game, I thought this one was a candidate to get flexed into primetime.  They kept the NFC East rivalry game, though.  Regardless, this is a big one for AFC playoff position.  San Diego's hot after a win in Kansas City, while the Bengals have seen their cushion in the North drop to just two games.  With a loss, the Baltimore-Pittsburgh winner will be just a game behind.  Fortunately, they still play both the Steelers and Ravens.  They can't afford to lose this one, though.

Giants (4-7) at Redskins (3-8): Giants-I'm not sure why they kept this one on Sunday night.  It's two bad teams, and, other than the fact that they genuinely dislike each other, there's absolutely nothing at stake.  The Giants' loss to Dallas on Sunday took care of that.  And Washington looked as bad against San Francisco on Monday night as they have all season.  Mike Shanahan said everybody's playing for their jobs.  That might include himself.  As for the game, if the Giants shut up, which Tom Coughlin has said they'd better, they should take this one.

Saints (9-2) at Seahawks (10-1): Seattle-ESPN always manages to luck into one really good Monday night game in December, and this year is no exception.  'Cause they've got the game of the week.  The winner of this matchup will have homefield in the NFC playoffs.  How important is that?  Well, CenturyLink Field and the Superdome are two of the toughest places to play in the league for visitors.  Especially Seattle.  The Seahawks haven't lost at home since the 2011 season, and they've got the best record in football.  If this game were in New Orleans, I'd pick the Saints.  But since it's in Seattle, I'm going with the Seahawks.

Last Week: 7-6-1
Season: 110-65-1

Rethinking the World Cup Seeds

World Cup qualifying is finally over.  We now know all 32 teams that will be competing in Brazil next summer.  The next big event is the World Cup draw, which will be held on December 6.

Just like in previous World Cups, the draw will see the teams divided into four pots.  One will contain the eight seeded teams, while the other three will be divided geographically (one will be the rest of the European teams, the other continents will be combined in the other two).  Unlike in years past, they've changed the process by which teams were placed in the seeded pot.  Brazil, as host, is automatically seeded.  The other seven seeded teams, though, were determined strictly on the FIFA World Rankings.  This is where the process is flawed.

The top seven teams in the world rankings at the end of October and, thus, the teams that will be seeded in the World Cup (which doesn't begin until June) are Spain, Germany, Argentina and Uruguay, as well as Colombia, Belgium and Switzerland.  No Italy.  No Netherlands.  (They're ranked eighth and ninth.)  And that also means Brazil, which is currently ranked 11th (mostly because they didn't have to qualify), wouldn't have been seeded if they weren't hosting. 

I have no issues with those first four.  They all should be seeded.  But you're telling me that Belgium and Switzerland deserve to be seeded over Italy and the Netherlands?  Please!  Part of the reason they changed the formula is because they thought it was unfair teams were getting credit for past success instead of how they're doing now.  Well, because of this new formula, you now have the teams that were finalists in two of the last three major FIFA international tournaments (the 2010 World Cup and 2012 Euro) aren't seeded at the World Cup.  That's absolutely absurd.

The way they figure out the FIFA World Rankings is an incredibly complex formula that, even though it's explained on Wikipedia, I don't really understand.  Basically, they give you credit for beating better teams in significant matches.  Except, there are plenty of problems with this system.  Other than the Confederations Cup (which they won), Brazil hasn't really played any significant matches since the last World Cup.  This isn't their fault.  As the hosts, they didn't have to go through World Cup qualifying, which is a way to chalk up a bunch of ranking points.  As a result, Brazil has dropped to 11th in the world rankings.  There's not a single person who believes Brazil has the 11th-best men's senior national soccer team in the world.

Likewise, I bet you'd have a hard time finding anybody who knew Belgium or Switzerland was in the Top 10, let alone the Top Seven.  (And, for the record, Switzerland has two more ranking points than the Netherlands.)  And even Belgian or Swiss people would probably agree that the Dutch and Italian national teams are far superior, regardless of what the rankings might say.

One final comment on the FIFA World Rankings before I move on.  These are the same World Rankings that once had the U.S. ranked fourth, but, at the same time are inherently unfair to teams like the U.S.  It's easier for European and South American nations to improve their ranking because of the strength of their regions.  The U.S. (as well as teams like Japan and Ivory Coast), meanwhile, is the best team in its region and can only beat better teams in friendly matches, which count less than World Cup or Continental Cup qualifiers.  That's one of the main reasons Australia left Oceania and now competes in Asia.

Every World Cup has its "Group of Death."  With Belgium and Switzerland, as well as Colombia to a lesser extent, seeded, the chances of having more than one "Group of Death" are very real.  It's entirely possible that there could end up being a World Cup group that looks like this: Germany (#2), Italy (#9), United States (#13), Ivory Coast (#17).  Likewise, you could end up with an incredibly weak group.  An example of that potential group: Switzerland (#7), Russia (#19), Ecuador (#22), Cameroon (#59).  Talk about luck of the draw in that case!

I get the whole concept of wanting to have the most competitive groups possible, and I can understand why they think the World Rankings are the fairest way of determining which nations are the strongest and, therefore, deserve to be seeded.  But there should be some discretion, as well.  Because by not seeding two of the top teams in the field, you're not making the tournament stronger.  In fact, instead of making sure the best teams will be playing in the later rounds, this sets it up for a better team to get knocked out early while a weaker team advances far into the knockout round.

If it were up to me, FIFA would seed the Netherlands and Italy instead of Belgium and Switzerland.  I'd even say that I would seed England over Colombia, as well, but I have less of an issue with Colombia than I do with the two European teams (and the two European teams that aren't seeded).  My pots for the World Cup draw would then be:

Pot 1 (Seeds): Brazil, Argentina, Uruguay, Spain, Germany, Italy, Netherlands, England
Pot 2 (Europe): Belgium, Switzerland, Portugal, France, Croatia, Russia, Bosnia & Herzegovina
Pot 3 (CONCACAF/Asia): United States, Costa Rica, Honduras, Mexico, Japan, South Korea, Australia, Iran
Pot 4 (South America/Africa): Colombia, Chile, Ecuador, Ivory Coast, Algeria, Nigeria, Ghana, Cameroon

Regardless, the Netherlands and Italy not being seeded is simply ridiculous.  Hopefully they end up in the same groups as Belgium and Switzerland so they can prove it.  Otherwise, I feel sorry for the other two teams in whatever group they end up in (which, unfortunately, could include the United States).

Week 12 NFL Picks

After this week, we finally don't have to deal with byes anymore!  It's not that much of a problem when it comes to making picks, it was just really weird to have that extra week of byes this year.  And it didn't make any sense that there were some weeks with six and some with two.  Eight weeks, four teams a week.  Why is that hard?  Since they needed the ninth week this year, have two weeks were there are two.  That some weeks six, some weeks four, some weeks two thing was just really confusing.  But I digress.  One game down, 13 to go in Week 12, which also features a special bonus game--the Grey Cup.

Steelers (4-6) at Browns (4-6): Pittsburgh-Amazingly, Pittsburgh is still in contention for a playoff spot.  That probably says more about how weak the race for that second AFC wild card is, but the fact remains Pittsburgh is in the hunt after that miserable start.  The Steelers and Browns are actually in a three-way tie for second place with Baltimore, which obviously will be broken on Sunday.  This is the first meeting of the year between these two, and I think Pittsburgh's going to pull it out.

Buccaneers (2-8) at Lions (6-4): Detroit-Break up the Bucs!  After losing their first eight games, they won twice in a week, although, in fairness, it was against Miami and Atlanta.  The Lions keep moving into first place, only to lose the next week.  Like last week in Pittsburgh.  I'm hesitant to take Detroit as a road favorite now.  Fortunately for the Lions, this isn't a road game.  They'll beat the Bucs and be ready for the Packers on Thanksgiving.

Vikings (2-8) at Packers (5-5): Green Bay-People have finally realized that Minnesota's not a good team.  In fact, the Vikings are pretty awful.  Eric Dickerson has even reached out to voice his support for Adrian Peterson, who's not exactly going to reach that 2,500-yard prediction.  The Packers are in a pretty sorry QB situation without Aaron Rodgers, and it doesn't look like it's going to get any better until he comes back.  But I still think they've got enough to snap their three-game skid.

Chargers (4-6) at Chiefs (9-1): Kansas City-What Denver showed last week is that Kansas City's previously-undefeated record was a product of their schedule as much as it was their improvement.  However, the Chiefs also showed that they are, indeed, a very formidable team.  I still think the Chargers are going to beat the Chiefs this season, but that'll be when they play in San Diego in Week 17.  With that crowd and Denver on tap again next week, Kansas City takes care of business this week.

Bears (6-4) at Rams (4-6): Chicago-For the life of me, I can't figure out why St. Louis is the favorite in this game.  I get that a lot of people think the Bears are overrated and the Rams are very tough at home, but I still think Chicago's not getting a whole lot of respect.  Jay Cutler or no Jay Cutler, the Bears should beat a Rams team without Sam Bradford.  Even on the road.

Panthers (7-3) at Dolphins (5-5): Carolina-Does anyone want to play the Carolina Panthers right now?  They're no longer a playoff sleeper.  They're a legitimate contender in the NFC South.  Especially if New Orleans loses in Seattle next week.  There's no team hotter than Carolina.  That shouldn't change in Miami.

Jets (5-5) at Ravens (4-6): Baltimore-This is the Jets' week to win.  Except this week they're on the road, and they're not a good road team.  Their only road win this season came in Atlanta, and it doesn't look anywhere near as good now as it did then.  The Ravens have lost four out of five, which explains why their record has dropped to 4-6.  For Baltimore to stay in contention for the wild card the Jets currently possess, they need a win this week.  That happened a couple weeks ago against Cincinnati, and they got the job done.  Count on the Ravens to do it again.

Jaguars (1-9) at Texans (2-8): Houston-Believe it or not, Jacksonville will move out of last place with a win this week.  And they're definitely capable of getting one against a struggling Texans team.  Houston and Atlanta are fighting for the title of most disappointing team this season, and the Texans bring an eight-game losing streak to the party.  I feel sorry for the people in North Florida and Houston who'll be subjected to this game.  For the record, though, I think the Texans are slightly less bad enough to get the win at home.

Titans (4-6) at Raiders (4-6): Tennessee-Even though I don't think they're any good at all, the Raiders are in that big mass of teams who are 4-6 and one game out of that second wild card spot.  What Oakland's done well is beat the other bad teams on its schedule.  Tennessee only slightly qualifies in that category.  The Titans are better than the Raiders, but playing in Oakland levels the playing field a little.  I'm going to play my gut and take the Titans in a game that could easily go either way.

Colts (7-3) at Cardinals (6-4): Indianapolis-This week we get to see what Arizona is made of.  The Cardinals are, incredibly, right smack in the middle of the NFC playoff race.  This week is one of their biggest tests, though, taking on the Colts.  Indy has had a couple tests of its own this season.  And won them both, beating the Niners in San Francisco and knocking off the Broncos in Peyton's return.  I'll take the Colts in this one, too.

Cowboys (5-5) at Giants (4-6): Giants-Outside of Manning vs. Brady, this is your game of the week.  The Giants, incredibly, can be only one game out of first with a win.  Dallas, meanwhile, moves back into a tie with Philly if they win in the Meadowlands, where they won on Opening Night last year.  The critics are once again coming out, though, wondering if Jerry Jones the owner's best move might be to fire Jerry Jones the GM.  Well, you know that's not going to happen.  I like the way the Giants are playing right now way too much.  This is the Giants team we thought we'd see at the beginning of the season.  They also have that Opening Night loss in Cowboys Stadium in their minds.  That should provide plenty of motivation for consecutive win No. 5 and a sweep of the three-game homestand.

Broncos (9-1) at Patriots (7-3): New England-The next chapter of Manning vs. Brady will be played out on Sunday night.  Denver once again proved its the best team in football with last week's win over previously unbeaten Kansas City.  The road doesn't get any easier, though.  They've got the Chiefs again next week, and have to deal with the Patriots on the road first.  In the irony of ironies, even those fans who hate the Patriots are saying they got screwed at the end of the game on Monday night.  Well, they weren't.  And the pass interference didn't change the game-ending interception.  Anyway, Denver's the better team on paper and should, in theory, beat New England pretty handily.  For some reason I think Brady's going to find a way to pull this one out, though.  That's why I'm going against my man Peyton and taking the Patriots.  Either way, this game will probably have huge implications on the AFC playoff race.

49ers (6-4) at Redskins (3-7): San Francisco-Is there anything worse than flying cross country (the bad way) to play a Monday night game?  The schedule-maker was not kind to the 49ers, who've already had to play a game in London this season.  They need to win this one, though, if they have any hope of challenging Seattle for the division title.  Back-to-back losses to the Panthers and Saints haven't helped that cause, but, as we know, Carolina and New Orleans are both pretty good.  So are Indianapolis and Seattle, the other teams San Francisco's lost to.  In other words, the 49ers take care of business against inferior opponents.  The Redskins certainly qualify in that category.

BONUS GAME: Grey Cup: Hamilton Tiger-Cats at Saskatchewan Roughriders: Saskatchewan-Last year we had a home team in the Grey Cup, and the Toronto Argonauts came away with the trophy.  This year's game is in Regina.  That's good news for the hometown Roughriders.  The Grey Cup will spend the next year in the Prairies.

BYES: Buffalo, Cincinnati, Philadelphia, Seattle

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-4
Season: 104-59

The Dolphin Drama

It's a generally understood principle that every story has two sides, with the truth lying somewhere in the middle.  That's especially true in Miami.  We've got Jonathan Martin's version of events, and we've got Richie Incognito's.  While very few people actually know what went on in the Dolphins locker room and how this situation spun so out of control, what we do know is that this situation goes far beyond bullying and hazing.

From everything that's come out in the media, it's clear that Richie Incognito is no saint.  Some of the stuff he's been accused of, whether it's true or not, is pretty reprehensible.  It's also worth noting that he wore out his welcome on three different college teams, and you can chalk Miami up as the latest NFL stop where he's had some problems.    But, while he's by no means blameless, I refuse to believe that this situation is entirely of Richie Incognito's making.

Just like I refuse to believe Jonathan Martin is an innocent victim in all of this.  My first reaction when I heard this story was, "You play in the NFL.  Be a man."  To an extent, I still feel that way.  You're making millions of dollars to play professional football, yet you can't handle getting picked on?  To the point where you have to check yourself into the hospital, then you have to go home with your parents?  C'mon.

No good was going to come out of this situation, but Martin has to be given plenty of blame himself.  It doesn't escalate if he doesn't go to the press.  The careers of Richie Incognito, Joe Philbin and Jeff Ireland (and that's just the list so far) aren't blown to pieces if not for Jonathan Martin.  The culture of the entire Miami Dolphins franchise isn't thrown into question if not for Jonathan Martin.

There are some things that should be left in the locker room.  And this is one of them.  Locker rooms are places that police themselves.  If there's a problem between two guys or a group of guys, that's where it should be handled.  Airing your team's dirty laundry in public is just going to make everybody look bad.  Why do you think those Dolphins who were asked said they'd be more willing to welcome back Richie Incognito than Jonathan Martin?

Incognito clearly did something that made Martin feel uncomfortable.  And there was clearly something that happened that pushed Martin past his breaking point.  But we don't know what it was.  Just like we don't know the details of what exactly went on.  Or who knew what and what was done about the escalating situation.  All we know is hearsay.  And even that's more than the public should know.

Martin has said he wants to continue his career.  But there's no way he'll be able to continue it with the Miami Dolphins.  From all accounts, it looks like one of the main reasons this problem escalated in this way is because Martin simply didn't fit in in the Dolphins locker room.  And now he's taken down a respected, veteran team leader, who also appears done in Miami.  Incognito wants to resume his career, too (which he has every right to), and he expects to be activated once his suspension is over.

We're probably a long way away from there being any sort of resolution to this drama.  Jonathan Martin has given his statement.  Richie Incognito still has to give his.  The NFL will conclude its investigation, and Dolphins owner Stephen Ross will conduct his own.  Who knows what the end result is going to be?  But what we do know is that this has changed the culture of the NFL locker room forever.  I have no doubt that there will be some sort of memo sent out by the league that details what's acceptable and what's not. 

One thing is clear, though.  What happened in Miami is not acceptable.  And I'm not just talking about Richie Incognito's hazing/bullying and whatever led to it.  The entire situation is unacceptable.  Worst of all, it never should've come to this.

Week 11 NFL Picks

Now the NFL season's down to the nitty-gritty, and I've got to rebound after a shaky 7-7 week last week (although three of my losses were by a combined six points).  Things are especially tight in the AFC, where five teams are 4-5, just behind the 5-4 Jets for the second wild card spot.  And the NFC's just a mess with a bunch of mediocre, .500 clubs are currently in the playoff mix.  That's probably one of the reasons why, aside from the incredibly obvious one, that the NFL and NBC used their first opportunity to flex by switching Broncos-Chiefs to Sunday night instead of Giants-Packers.  Good call.  So, Giants-Packers is now an afternoon game like all the rest of 'em.

Jets (5-4) at Bills (3-7): Buffalo-The Jets have done this crazy win one, lose one thing all season.  So far, it's worked.  Incredibly, they're sitting on a playoff spot right now.  They've been winning in the odd weeks, but last week was their bye so something's gotta give.  Either they win consecutive games for the first time all season, or they lose in an odd week for the first time.  The Bills have been struggling, but they're a tough home team, and they gave the Jets all they could handle in a 27-20 loss at the Meadowlands in Week 3.  They're also pissed off about always playing a team that's coming off its bye week, and they want to do something about it.  I think this time they pull off the upset.

Ravens (4-5) at Bears (5-4): Chicago-This one is a tough call.  Baltimore and Chicago both really need a W.  The Ravens got a much-needed victory against Cincinnati last week, while the Bears had a chance to take over first place, but lost to the Lions.  I'm leaning Chicago because the game's at Soldier Field, although a Baltimore win wouldn't surprise me in the least.

Browns (4-5) at Bengals (6-4): Cincinnati-Cleveland pulled the upset in the first Battle of Ohio back in Week 4.  Cincinnati then reeled off four straight wins before their current two-game losing streak.  The Bengals are still in control of the AFC North, though, and can really cement that hold by taking the rematch with the Browns.  I bet they do.

Redskins (3-6) at Eagles (5-5): Philadelphia-I don't know what's more amazing about the NFC East.  That Philadelphia's tied for first place, or that Washington is just a game-and-a-half out.  Either way, it's not a good commentary about what used to be the best division in football.  In Week 1 on that Monday night, Philly put on a show that made us think we'd see this entertaining brand of offense all season.  Well, we haven't, and this game is going to be much closer than that one.  The outcome won't change, though.  With the Cowboys on their bye, the Eagles will move into sole possession of first place.

Lions (6-3) at Steelers (3-6): Detroit-Is there ever a time when I thought I'd be confident in picking Detroit as a road favorite in Pittsburgh in Week 11?  Yet here we are, and that's exactly the situation.  The Steelers played probably their best game of the season last week.  The Lions, meanwhile, moved into first place by winning in Chicago.  Detroit's the better team right now.  That's why I'm shocking myself a little and taking the Lions.

Falcons (2-7) at Buccaneers (1-8): Tampa Bay-Oh, how things have changed for the Atlanta Falcons.  Things have also changed for the Bucs in the past week.  They finally have a win and, believe it or not, are the hotter team going into this matchup.  I have absolutely no confidence in the Falcons right now.  So little that I'm giving Tampa Bay the nod.

Cardinals (5-4) at Jaguars (1-8): Arizona-Because the Jaguars played on Sunday and the Bucs played on Monday last week, it was Tampa Bay, not Jacksonville, that was the last team in the NFL to get a win.  It doesn't change the fact that the Jaguars are the worst team in the league, though.  They go back to their losing ways against a Cardinals team that's won its last two.

Raiders (3-6) at Texans (2-7): Houston-Talk about a crappy game.  Houston's riding a seven-game losing streak, while the Raiders are, well, the Raiders.  This is generally the type of game that I think Oakland has a chance to actually win, but not this week.  The Texans are a desperate team that knows this is their chance to finally win a game for the first time in two months.  They've come close in the last two weeks against teams that are much better than the Raiders.  This time, they get the job done.

Chargers (4-5) at Dolphins (4-5): San Diego-When they moved Chiefs-Broncos, they made this one a late game, which benefits the Chargers.  We're guaranteed to have a winner here, and that winner can conceivably tie the Jets for the second wild card.  The Richie Incognito-Jonathan Martin situation came to a head last week, when the Dolphins lost to winless Tampa Bay.  Miami's a mess right now.  Advantage San Diego.

49ers (6-3) at Saints (7-2): New Orleans-The week's second-best game is a rematch of Colin Kaepernick's coming out party.  When these two met last year in New Orleans, he made his first start and led the 49ers to the victory.  A victory is something San Francisco needs after last week's loss to the Panthers, but New Orleans will be a tough place to get it.  The Saints are a much better team now than they were last year.  They need a win to keep pace with the Seahawks, and I think they'll get it.

Packers (5-4) at Giants (3-6): Giants-This matchup lost all its attractiveness with the Giants' terrible start and Aaron Rodgers' injury.  That's one of the reasons why it got flexed out of Sunday night.  Green Bay has looked lost without Rodgers, looking very un-Packers like in home losses to Chicago and Philadelphia.  Things have gotten so bad that they've brought back Matt Flynn, who had one good game when they decided to sit Rodgers in the finale two years ago, turned that into a big free agent contract, then bombed with three different teams (two of which were the Raiders and Bills).  Can you say one-hit wonder?  Believe it or not, this is a game that looks like a Giants win.  All signs favor the team that's won three straight and actually has its starting quarterback.

Vikings (2-7) at Seahawks (9-1): Seattle-Seattle's at home.  Enough said.  You've got probably the best team in the NFC, and that crowd, against a not-very-good Minnesota squad that has been exposed as a one-trick pony.  I'm not sure this game will even be particularly close.

Chiefs (9-0) at Broncos (8-1): Denver-The NFL's game of the year so far.  Undefeated Kansas City and 8-1 Denver meet for the first of two meetings in three weeks.  Of course, a lot of people thought they might both be undefeated and on a collision course for this game, but the Colts took care of that.  We've got strength against strength with the Broncos offense against the Chiefs defense.  While it's obviously a little bit of a concern, I think Denver might be playing possum a little bit and that Peyton Manning's ankle is much ado about nothing.  Regardless, you knew he was going to play in the biggest game of the season.  Kansas City's schedule has been much easier than Denver's.  They haven't faced a team as good as the Broncos so far.  The Chiefs will quickly try to determine the extent of Peyton's injury and exploit it.  Denver's the best team in the NFL, though.  The Broncos will use their fans and the intensity of this rivalry to regain the top spot in the AFC West heading into another Sunday night game next week in New England.

Patriots (7-2) at Panthers (6-3): New England-Speaking of the Patriots, they visit surprising Carolina in a very good Monday night matchup.  The Panthers are legitimate contenders in the NFC.  They've won five straight, including last week's 10-9 squeaker in San Francisco.  This game's not going to be as easy for Brady and Co. as originally thought.  This is also the type of game New England typically wins, though.  They'll go 8-2 into the next chapter of Manning vs. Brady.

BYE: Dallas, St. Louis

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-7
Season: 93-55

2013 MVP Awards: My Picks

Last year's MVP discussion was a debate between traditionalists and sabermetricians.  In the end, the traditionalists (correctly) won out, as Miguel Cabrera's Triple Crown defeated Mike Trout's rookie season pretty handily.  Well, here we go again.  Cabrera didn't win the Triple Crown this season, but his overall numbers might've been just a little bit better.  Meanwhile, Trout had no sophomore slump.  He put together another solid season with numbers that continue to make the sabermetrics community go gaga over him.

Where I stood on Cabrera vs. Trout last year was pretty clear.  And my stance hasn't changed this year.  I love Mike Trout as a player.  He's going to be an MVP one day.  But he wasn't last year.  And he shouldn't be this year.  As good as Mike Trout is, the Angels have been a third-place team ever since he arrived in Anaheim.  Last year my argument against Trout was more about not discounting the merits of what Cabrera did.  This year I'm basing it on that fact.  Trout's a great player, but the Angels finished third with him and would've finished third without him.

Of course, I'm going to seemingly go against my own argument here, but I can't go without singing the praises of the third guy in this race.  The Orioles' Chris Davis had a breakout season that was simply extraordinary.  He challenged Roger Maris' American League record for home runs for a little while, ending up with 53 and also edging Cabrera by one RBI, 138-137.  Of course, the Orioles also finished third.  But Davis had a better season than Trout and deserves more MVP consideration for a couple reasons.  First, third place in the AL East is very different than third in the AL West.  Baltimore was in the playoff hunt for most of the season, while the Angels were out of it in July.  Davis was the main reason why.  And, frankly, his numbers were too good to ignore.

That brings me to Miguel Cabrera, who was my choice last year and is my choice again this year.  And not just because he's the best player in the game.  How do you follow up a Triple Crown season?  By threatening to win another one.  Even though he didn't make history with back-to-back Triple Crowns, Miggy's numbers were even better this year.  A .348 average, 44 home runs and 137 RBIs.  He led the AL in average and finished second to Davis in the other two categories.  And let's not forget two other things...he played injured throughout the month of September and the Tigers made the playoffs.  Neither the Orioles nor the Angels can say that.

Cabrera and Davis were a clear 1-2 for a majority of the season, but I think Miguel Cabrera's play stands out above the others.  Sure, he's the best player in baseball.  But just being the best player isn't enough to make you an MVP.  Miguel Cabrera, however, found some way to back up a historic season by having an even better year statistically.  While ending the season playing hurt.  For a playoff team.  That, my friends, is an MVP.

In the National League, the debate is a much more valid one.  Both Yadier Molina and Andrew McCutchen are incredibly deserving.  I have no idea which one is going to win.  I predict this will be the closest race of the eight awards this week.

If you were basing it strictly on the numbers, you'd have an incredibly valid argument for the third finalist, Arizona's Paul Goldschmidt.  The Diamondbacks were surprising contenders this season, finishing second in the NL West.  And Goldschmidt had perhaps the best statistical season of any National League position players.  He led the league in both home runs (36) and RBIs (125) while playing Gold Glove defense at first base.  Clearly deserving of his bronze medal in this MVP race.

At the All*Star Break, I pegged Yadier Molina as my midseason NL MVP, and he probably would've remained my choice had he not missed a couple weeks in July-August.  Yadier Molina's value to the Cardinals can't always be tangibly measured.  But there's no question how valuable he is.  On a team that uses more young players than anybody, Yadier Molina's the one constant.  And I don't think there's any question how important he is to that pitching staff.  Tony La Russa once said that he didn't care how Yadier Molina hit.  He was going to be his catcher anyway.  Well, this year Yadi hit .316, which was fourth-best in the National League, crushed 44 doubles, and had an NL-best 80 RBIs.  For a 97-win team that advanced to the World Series.  I'd have absolutely no problem with Yadier Molina being named NL MVP.

My choice, however, is the Pirates' Andrew McCutchen.  All of those intangible values I praised about Molina are equally prevalent in McCutchen.  He wasn't among the National League leaders in anything this season.  But I also don't think there's anybody who'd question Andrew McCutchen's importance to the Pittsburgh Pirates.  He's the face of the franchise, and this year he finally got his due recognition, as the Pirates finally had not just a winning season, a playoff season.  McCutchen's a five-tool player, which was on full display in 2013.  A .317 average, 21 homers, 84 RBIs, 38 doubles, a Gold Glove-caliber center field.

None of that's why McCutchen's my pick, though.  By the very narrowest of margins, I think his value to the Pirates was slightly more than Molina's to the Cardinals.  Even without Yadier Molina, the Cardinals would still be a very good team.  The Pirates, though, had an incredible turnaround this season.  That turnaround was a few years in the making, and Andrew McCutchen has been the one guy at the heart of it.  Everything came together in Pittsburgh this season.  Andrew McCutchen was one of the biggest reasons why.  For changing the baseball culture in a city that had known nothing but losing for 20 years, Andrew McCutchen deserves to be named National League Most Valuable Player.

AL: 1-Cabrera; 2-Davis; 3-Robinson Cano; 4-Dustin Pedroia; 5-Trout; 6-Josh Donaldson; 7-Max Scherzer; 8-Jason Kipnis; 9-Adrian Beltre; 10-Mariano Rivera
NL: 1-McCutchen; 2-Molina; 3-Goldschmidt; 4-Hanley Ramirez; 5-Freddie Freeman; 6-Clayton Kershaw; 7-Brandon Phillips; 8-Carlos Beltran; 9-Michael Cuddyer; 10-Matt Carpenter

2013 Cy Young Awards: My Picks

As the BBWAA awards reach their halfway point, we reach the two votes that have the least suspense of all.  The winners of the Cy Young Awards both fall into the "Duh" category.  The only suspense left is seeing who finished second and whether or not the votes were unanimous (like they should be).

The winners, of course, will be Max Scherzer and Clayton Kershaw.  They were both the dominant pitchers in their respective leagues this season, and they both had the Cy Young locked up months ago.  In fact, I'd be willing to argue that they both deserve to be in the MVP conversation.

We'll start with Kershaw.  He was the Cy Young winner two years ago, when he won the pitching Triple Crown.  Kershaw was even better this year, emerging as arguably the best pitcher in the baseball.  (Is it too early to say he's the best Dodgers lefty since Sandy Koufax?)  He had a 1.83 ERA.  Let's let the ridiculousness of that sink in for a second.  There were also the 232 strikeouts and 16 wins, which seems remarkably low for a team that won 92 games and reached the NLCS.  The only reason Kershaw didn't start the All*Star Game was because it was at Citi Field and Matt Harvey was the right call.

So who's going to finish second to Kershaw?  Well, it's either Rookie of the Year Jose Fernandez of the Marlins or the Cardinals' Adam Wainwright.  I'd be inclined to say Fernandez had the second-best season of any National League pitcher.  His 2.19 ERA was second-best in the Majors, behind only Kershaw, and he held opponents to a .182 batting average.  Then there's the fact that the Marlins, who lost 100 games, were above .500 when he started.  I think his season trumps Wainwright's.  Wainwright tied for the NL lead in wins for a Cardinals team that had the best record in baseball en route to the World Series.  Both of their seasons pale in comparison to Kershaw's, though.

Just like all American League pitchers seasons' pale in comparison to Max Scherzer's.  The Tigers had the deepest rotation in baseball.  They had Anibal Sanchez, the AL leader in ERA, and 2011 MVP Justin Verlander, the best pitcher in baseball over the last two seasons, and neither one was their ace.  That was Max Scherzer, the only pitcher more dominant than Kershaw this season.  He didn't lose until his last start before the All*Star Break and ended up 21-3.  Even those sabermetric idiots who think wins are overvalued have to admit that's impressive.  And Scherzer didn't just accumulate wins by pitching five innings and getting massive run support.  He pitched 214.1 innings, held opponents to a batting average under .200, had a sub-1.00 WHIP, and finished among the AL leaders with a 2.90 ERA.  By any standard, he was simply dominant.  (And I'm sure if he has it to do again, Jim Leyland doesn't take him out in the seventh inning of Game 2 of the ALCS.)  Scherzer was so head-and-shoulders above all other American League pitchers this season that I'd be surprised if this award wasn't unanimous.

Both of the other two finalists are Japanese, and (if they had any chance of winning) would be the first Japanese-born Cy Young Award winner.  The first is the Rangers' Yu Darvish, who I think was the second choice.  Darvish has proven to be worth every penny Texas spent on him in posting fee and salary.  He struck out 277 hitters this season, by far the most in the Majors.  Then there's Seattle's Hisashi Iwakuma, who, like Fernandez, was the best pitcher on a bad team.  He went 14-6 and with a 2.66 ERA and an opposing batting average of .220.  Solid numbers, but nowhere near the ones put up by Scherzer or even Darvish.

I don't want to say Fernandez, Wainwright, Darvish and Iwakuma are undeserving, but I think even they would admit their chances of winning are fairly minimal (provided they exist at all).  There are years where there's the fundamental debate about how to judge a pitcher's value and how you can't rely strictly on traditional stats when determining Cy Young-worthiness of a pitcher.  This year, though, there's no such debate.  Because no matter what your criteria are, Clayton Kershaw and Max Scherzer should both be runaway Cy Young winners.

Just for the record, here's how I would vote (in Cy Young voting, they get five spots):
NL: 1-Kershaw, 2-Fernandez, 3-Wainwright, 4-Craig Kimbrel, 5-Jordan Zimmermann
AL: 1-Scherzer, 2-Darvish, 3-Jon Lester, 4-Iwakuma, 5-Anibal Sanchez

2013 Managers of the Year: My Picks

Not surprisingly, Baseball got its awards season started with Tampa Bay's Wil Myers and Miami's Jose Fernandez taking home the Rookie of the Year awards.  Neither was a surprise, although I thought the margin between Fernandez and Yasiel Puig would be a little closer.  Anyway, now it's on to the managers, where I think the winners will be almost as clear-cut as the Cy Young winners.

Before I break down the candidates, I have to go on a bit of a rant.  How is it possible that Joe Girardi didn't finish in the top three of the voting?!  Girardi wasn't going to win, and it's likely he finished fourth, but can anybody seriously tell me that Bob Melvin did a better managing job than him this season?  Melvin, last year's deserving winner, took a playoff team back to the playoffs.  Sure, it was low-budget Oakland, but I think Melvin was given a little too much credit for basically keeping it going this year. 

Girardi, meanwhile, did one of the best managing jobs of a third-place team I've ever seen, and it was by far the best job he did during his time with the Yankees.  All the injuries, a franchise-record number of players used, a patchwork lineup of Minor Leaguers and scrap-heap veterans.  Yet he had his team in the playoff hunt until the final week of the season.  I'm still convinced that Girardi would've been the hands-down winner if the Yankees actually had managed to make the playoffs despite everything they had to overcome this season.  We've been having a similar discussion at work over the past several days, and I agree with my colleague Christian's assessment.  Having the best team doesn't mean you're the best coach.  Joe Girardi did a better managing job than Bob Melvin did this season.

Since I've made it pretty clear that not one part of me believes Bob Melvin is worthy of being AL Manager of the Year, that leaves us with two candidates.  The two guys who deserve to be finalists.  Terry Francona and John Farrell.  Francona led an incredible turnaround in his first year in Cleveland, while Farrell didn't just right the ship in Boston.  He took the Red Sox from a last place embarrassment to a 97-win, World Series championship squad.

Either choice would be a good one.  Cleveland's success this season was more unexpected, and most of the credit for it has to go to Francona.  His split with the Red Sox was pretty unpleasant, but this season in Cleveland proved something we all already knew.  Terry Francona can manage.  The man who replaced him in Boston, meanwhile (if you don't count the Bobby Valentine Era), completely changed the culture.  John Farrell brought a winning mentality back to that clubhouse and transformed the Red Sox back into what you'd expect.  That annoyingly good team that just won't go away.

The votes are cast before the postseason, so Farrell won't get any credit for leading the Red Sox to the World Series title.  Even without it, though, I think he gets the award.  Most people thought bringing Boston back would be more than a one-year job.  Well, he didn't just lead a worst-to-first turnaround, he guided his team to the best record in baseball.

In the National League, the winner is just as obvious.  For 19 years, the Pittsburgh Pirates were known more for losing than anything else.  This year, they finally broke that streak of losing seasons, and then some.  Pittsburgh hosted a playoff game for the first time since Barry Bonds was on the team and took the Cardinals to five games in the Division Series.  The credit for that can be pointed towards one man.  The Pirates' return to relevance was the fruit of the labor put in by Clint Hurdle.  I've never seen someone more deserving of a Manager of the Year award.

That's not to say either Don Mattingly or Fredi Gonzalez is undeserving.  All three NL candidates would be deserving.  Mattingly went from almost getting fired in June to the NLCS and a contract extension, while Gonzalez had the Braves in first place all season.  Unlike the AL, I have no issue with these three finalists.  In fact, I predicted they'd be the three at the All*Star Break.  It doesn't change the fact, though, that out of these three standout managerial performances, Clint Hurdle's stands out the most.

So, for the record, my choices and my predictions for the AL and NL Managers of the Year are the same.  John Farrell and Clint Hurdle.  In a year that saw a number of great managerial performances, theirs were the best.  My vote in the American League would go (1) Farrell, (2) Francona, (3) Girardi, and in the National League, my rankings would be (1) Hurdle, (2) Mattingly, (3) Gonzalez.

2013 Rookies of the Year: My Picks

I like it and I don't like it that MLB is now doing a week of postseason awards shows where they present both the American and National League versions of an award on the same day in a show broadcast on MLB Network.  I like it that they've made it more of an event and that they award the same award twice on the same day.  But what I don't like is that they also announce the finalists for these awards ahead of time.  That takes some of the fun out of projecting these awards away.

Regardless, the fun starts on Monday with the announcement of the Rookies of the Year.  I think the AL winner is pretty clear, but the NL race is going to be a close one.  Jose Fernandez and Yasiel Puig both had sensational rookie seasons.  With that in mind, let's start in the National League.

The third finalist is Cardinals pitcher Shelby Miller.  Miller earned a spot in the Cardinals' rotation out of Spring Training and ended up winning 15 games for the NL champions.  Although, he was nowhere to be seen in the postseason, when another Cardinals rookie starter--Michael Wacha--took over the spotlight.  Miller had a fine season, but he's going to finish third.  Even he knows that.  This is a two-man race.

No rookie in either league made a bigger impact than Yasiel Puig.  When he was called up in June (as an injury replacement for Matt Kemp), the Dodgers were a high-priced, underachieving last-place team that was about to fire their manager.  Then Puig arrived on the scene and LA took off.  And so did Puigmania.  He was simply sensational in helping the turnaround that ended up with the Dodgers playing in the NLCS.  Last year we had two rookie sensations, and both Mike Trout and Bryce Harper ran away with the award.  This year's rookie sensation was clearly Yasiel Puig.  Puig would be my choice for the award.

However, I don't have an NL Rookie of the Year vote.  And I think the guys that do voted for somebody else.  I think the winner will be the Marlins' Jose Fernandez.  Fernandez had a 2.19 ERA and went 12-6 for a Marlins team that was above .500 when he pitched and something like 40-90 when he didn't.  He's something else.  And it's fun to watch him pitch.  I was convinced that Puig was going to be the winner until they announced the finalists last week.  Fernandez is also a finalist for the Cy Young.  While there's no way he wins that, the fact that he's a finalist is what leads me to believe Fernandez won Rookie of the Year over Puig.  And he would definitely be a worthy winner.

There's a pretty good chance both Rookies of the Year will be from the State of Florida.  One of the reasons the Rays manage to be competitive year after year is the strength of their farm system and the contributions they get from younger players.  This year was no different, which is how the Rays landed two Rookie of the Year finalists.

One of those finalists is Wil Myers, who's my pick to win.  Myers was the best everyday player in a rookie lot that wasn't really super impressive.  Like Puig, he wasn't called up until midway through the season.  But Myers sure made an impact once he landed in the Bigs in June.  He hit .293 with 13 home runs and led all AL rookies with 53 RBIs while holding down right field for the Rays.  Joe Maddon showed so much confidence in him at the plate that Myers was often batting either second or fourth on either side of Evan Longoria.  The only thing that might be held against him is that he didn't join the team until June, but that can also work in his favor.  Because the Rays were a much better and much more complete team once Wil Myers joined the roster.

Tampa Bay's other finalist is starter Chris Archer.  Archer tossed two shutouts (which I think were both against the Yankees, they couldn't buy a hit off him all season) and had the best rookie ERA in the American League.  Of course, the Rays are built on their young pitching.  Jeremy Hellickson has already won this award and David Price is a Cy Young winner.  Archer's the latest guy to join that list.  But if given my choice of Rays rookies, I'm taking Myers over Archer.

Rounding out the list is Jose Iglesias, the guy who made Jhonny Peralta expendable in Detroit.  He started the year in Boston, playing third base when Will Middlebrooks was injured, then was sent to the Tigers in that three-team trade that sent Jake Peavy to Boston.  That deal worked out for both teams, as Detroit found its shortstop of the future and Boston won the World Series (beating the Tigers in the ALCS in the process).  Iglesias has an impressive glove and did OK with the bat, hitting a combined .303.  He's got a nice-looking career ahead of him.

If I had a vote, my selections would be Yasiel Puig and Wil Myers.  I don't think they'll be the two winners, though.  I think Myers wins in the AL, but in the NL, I'm going with Jose Fernandez.  (For the record, my vote would be: NL-1. Puig, 2. Fernandez, 3. Miller; AL-1. Myers, 2. Iglesias, 3. Archer).

Week 10 NFL Picks

Before I get into this week's NFL picks, I need to make a little clarification regarding last week.  I'm not sure how I did this, especially since I look at my Yahoo! picks while I'm writing my blog post, but I picked each team in the Chargers-Redskins game last week.  I picked San Diego here and Washington on Yahoo!  Since my Yahoo! picks are where I get the record that I publish from, I'm counting that Redskins pick from last week.  Again, I have no idea how I ended up picking both the Redskins and the Chargers, but I did.  It's confusing and embarrassing.

Hopefully I'll be able to properly copy my pick from one place to the other this week.  That shouldn't be hard, though.  This is one of those weeks where it's hard to pick against the favorites (even though that did come to bite me on Thursday).

Seahawks (8-1) at Falcons (2-6): Seattle-This playoff rematch was supposed to be a potential playoff preview.  So much for that.  The Falcons aren't going anywhere.  The Seahawks, though, I've finally come around on.  Seattle's on the short list of best teams in the NFL, and I wouldn't be surprised to see them in Giants Stadium in February.  And that Saints loss to the Jets last week means the NFC playoffs are likely headed through Seattle.  In the playoff game, the Seahawks blew a lead and the Falcons won.  Things will be different this week.

Lions (5-3) at Bears (5-3): Chicago-Chicago's win in Lambeau on Monday night created a three-way tie atop the NFC North.  The Lions have the tiebreaker, though, so they're technically the first-place team.  These rivalry games are always fun, but adding that first-place element to it makes it even better.  Jay Cutler's back this week, too.  I don't know how effective he'll be, but the Bears won in Green Bay last week without him.  And Chicago's a better team with Cutler on the field.  I think that's enough to make the difference and give the Bears their second straight division win.

Eagles (4-5) at Packers (5-3): Green Bay-This was a much easier pick last week when Aaron Rodgers wasn't out with a broken collarbone.  His importance to the Packers was on clear display when Seneca Wallace was under center on Monday.  The Eagles' Nick Foles, meanwhile, had a historic day against the Raiders, tossing seven touchdown passes.  But that performance gets an asterisk.  They were playing the Raiders.  Even without Rodgers, I think the Packers defense is enough to carry Green Bay to a victory.

Jaguars (0-8) at Titans (4-4): Tennessee-Jacksonville didn't lose last week!  That's all I got for the Jaguars.  I do think they'll manage to win a game this year, and the rematch with the Titans in Jacksonville is a good candidate.  But they're not going to win in Nashville.  The Titans move to 5-4 and into a tie for the second wild card.

Rams (3-6) at Colts (6-2): Indianapolis-Bad news for the Colts: this isn't a Sunday night game.  This is actually Indy's first Sunday afternoon game since Week 5, when they handed Seattle its only loss of the season.  The Rams are in the middle of a tough stretch.  They played well in close games against the Seahawks and Titans, but ended up losing both.  Don't be surprised if the same thing happens in Indy.

Raiders (3-5) at Giants (2-6): Giants-The Giants haven't lost in three whole weeks!  Sure, last week was their bye, but it still counts.  And they're getting a home game against the Raiders at just the right time.  This is the beginning of a three-game homestand, but with the Packers and Cowboys coming in next, it's also a must-win.  The NFC East is very winnable.  It's not if they lose at home to the Raiders.

Bills (3-6) at Steelers (2-6): Pittsburgh-I actually consider this game a toss-up.  Pittsburgh's nowhere near as scary as they once were anymore.  That became abundantly clear when the Patriots ran all over them last week.  Not all hope is lost, though.  Ben Roethlisberger had a good game.  The Bills finally don't have a first-place team to deal with, but the Steelers are desperate.  For that reason, I say Pittsburgh wins a close one.

Bengals (6-3) at Ravens (3-5): Baltimore-Want to talk desperate AFC North teams?  I give you the defending Super Bowl Champions.  Baltimore is 3-5 and just a game ahead of Pittsburgh.  The first-place Bengals have a chance of running away with the division, especially if they win this week.  But I don't think the Ravens can be counted out completely yet.  Joe Flacco's going to find a way.  The Bengals are favored, but this is my only upset pick of the week.  I'm going Ravens.

Panthers (5-3) at 49ers (6-2): San Francisco-This is a matchup of the two teams that currently hold the NFC wild cards.  Most everyone expected San Francisco to be in this position, but Carolina has been a pleasant surprise.  Cam Newton should earn a trip to the Pro Bowl, and the Panthers are going to make the Saints work so much harder than they thought they would in the NFC South.  The Panthers are going to be legitimate contenders for a playoff spot.  This week, though, the 49ers will prove to be the better team.

Texans (2-6) at Cardinals (4-4): Arizona-Remember when everyone was so high on the Houston Texans?  Yeah, well things have sure changed, haven't they?  The Texans should've won last week, yet found a way to blow it.  Now they're without Head Coach Gary Kubiak, who had a health scare in the Indianapolis game, and Wade Phillips is in charge.  This losing streak has to end eventually.  But I'm going to say that'll be next week when the Texans host the Raiders.  As for this week, it reaches six.

Broncos (7-1) at Chargers (4-4): Denver-An easy trap game for Denver.  The next three weeks are Kansas City, New England, Kansas City, and the Chargers are a very good team.  In fact, with a win, San Diego moves into a tie with the Jets for the second AFC wild card.  I wouldn't be surprised at all if this is a game.  In the end, though, the Broncos are just too good.  Jack Del Rio was the perfect choice as the interim coach while John Fox recovers.  Besides, they've still got offensive coordinator Peyton Manning running the show.  Denver also knows that they can't take over first place next week if they lose this week.

Cowboys (5-4) at Saints (6-2): New Orleans-The last pre-flex Sunday night game is a good one between first-place teams.  The Saints somehow lost to the Jets last week, while the rest of the NFC East seems content to let Dallas stay in first place no matter how much the Cowboys try to give it away.  Only beating Minnesota by four at home?  Seriously?  There are two big differences in this game that swing in the Saints' favor.  Rob Ryan wants to stick it to the Cowboys, and New Orleans always plays its best on the national stage.  Keeping both of those things in mind lead me towards a Saints pick.

Dolphins (4-4) at Buccaneers (0-8): Miami-It's certainly been a tumultuous 10 days in Miami since that Thursday-night win over the Bengals last week.  A dedicated post to this will be coming in the near future, but my nutshell take on the Richie Incognito-Jonathan Martin situation is basically this: "You're in the NFL.  Be a man."  Anyway, all of that drama has to be a major distraction for Miami, and Tampa Bay stands to be the beneficiary.  The Bucs are better than their record, but 0-8 is 0-8.  Once they stop finding ways to lose, they're going to win a game or two.  For some reason, I think the remaining Dolphins can put everything aside and rally for a victory to move back into the playoff discussion.

BYE: Cleveland, Kansas City, New England, Jets

Last Week: 9-4
This Week: 0-1
Season: 85-49

NFL Midseason Awards

They announced the three finalists for each of the eight major MLB awards today.  (That Joe Girardi isn't a finalist for AL Manager of the Year is an absolute joke!)  That got me thinking.  I normally choose my midseason winners around the All-Star Break, and I always make my prediction for who's going to win right before the awards are announced.  Well, this week marked the midway point of the NFL season.  It's a lot harder to do this with the NFL, but not impossible.  Here are my choices for the NFL's midseason awards:

MVP: Peyton Manning, Broncos-Peyton's having a season that's ridiculous by even his standards.  The Broncos seemingly score at will, and he has a passer rating of 119.4, which would be the second-best of his career.  Oh yeah, he's also thrown 29 touchdowns to just six interceptions, and he didn't throw an interception until Week 5 (when he already had 16 TD passes)!  Tom Brady's record of 50 TD passes appears to be in serious jeopardy.

Offensive Player: Calvin Johnson, Lions-This one easily could've been Manning, as well, and it's actually fairly common to see the same player win both MVP and Offensive Player of the Year.  But I'm giving the nod to Megatron.  Talk about guys on record-setting paces.  (How's that 2,500-yard season working out for you, Adrian Peterson?)  It's ridiculous how good this guy is, even if the numbers don't totally show it.  Part of the reason for that, of course, is the fact that he's double-teamed every week.  But still, he's got 47 receptions, 821 yards and seven touchdowns in seven games.  In his last game against Dallas, Megatron went nuts.  14 catches for 329 yards (an average of 23.5) and a touchdown in a one-point win for the first-place Lions.  And he's a human highlight.

Defensive Player: Tamba Hali, Chiefs-I feel a little bad not picking someone from the Seahawks here, but undefeated Kansas City has the best defense in the league, and Hali is the Chiefs' best player.  We knew that last year when they were terrible and he made the Pro Bowl, and it's even more prevalent this year.  He's a scary guy on the pass rush and a force on the unit that's primarily responsible for KC's perfect start.  Just to back things up with some numbers: 30 tackles, nine sacks (fifth in the NFL), four forced fumbles and a pick-six this season.

Offensive Rookie: DeAndre Hopkins, Texans-This certainly isn't last year, when there were three rookie quarterbacks taking their teams to the playoffs and grabbing headlines, as well as everyone's attention.  This year, most of the highly-touted offensive rookies in the NFL are linemen.  And a lineman's not going to win Offensive Rookie of the Year.  So, with the limited options available, it's really down to DeAndre Hopkins and Tavon Austin and, believe it or not, Geno Smith.  Since Austin has been mostly disappointing, that leaves DeAndre Hopkins.  Even though the Texans have had their problems, Hopkins has been pretty solid.  He's started every game and has 31 catches for 470 yards.

Defensive Rookie: Kiko Alonso, Bills-Since the Bills aren't good, they're never on national TV, which means nobody outside of Buffalo has really seen Kiko Alonso play.  But the middle linebacker has made his presence known.  He's third in the NFL with 89 tackles and is tied for the league lead with four interceptions.  At the very least, it looks like he's a lock for the Pro Bowl.

Comeback Player: LeSean McCoy, Eagles-The Eagles were really, really bad last year.  LeSean McCoy was a big reason why.  This year has been different.  He currently leads the NFL in rushing, and has gained almost as many yards in nine games this season as he did all of last year.  I'd even argue that LeSean McCoy has been the best running back in the NFL this year.

Coach: Andy Reid, Chiefs-This was the easiest call of them all.  Reid had worn out his welcome in Philadelphia, and a change of scene was needed for both parties.  But boy has he thrived in Kansas City!  What a difference a coach can make for a team that went from 2-14 last year to 9-0 this season.  It's not like anybody had any doubt, but this season has really proven it.  Andy Reid knows how to coach football.

Washington's Name Debate

A lot of people probably haven't noticed that the Redskins, who had high expectations after winning the NFC East last season, have underachieved so far in 2013.  Robert Griffin III was injured at the start of the season, and they still haven't really found their groove.  But all of that has been ignored because of the controversy surrounding the team's name.  Those that don't like the name "Redskins" have taken it upon themselves to say how offended they are in an attempt to pressure the team into changing its name.

While I have no problem with the name "Redskins," I understand that some people are offended by it.  That's their right.  Who am I to tell them they should change their minds?  But where I take issue with the existence of this controversy is the reason it exists at all.  Those that are offended by the name decided they were speaking for everybody and created the controversy themselves.  You can forgive Dan Snyder for not giving into them just because.

I'm not saying I agree with Dan Snyder, either, but he's made some pretty valid points in defense of the name, which he has vowed to never change as long as he owns the team.  The Washington Redskins have a history dating back 80 years.  They've become a part of the city's identity.  Teams changing their nickname isn't unheard of.  Just this year, the New Orleans Hornets became the "Pelicans," and the "Hornets" name will revert back to Charlotte next year when the Bobcats change their name.  Even in Washington itself, the "Bullets" were rechristened the "Wizards" in the late 90s.  But none of those teams have the history of the Washington Redskins.  Asking them to change their name is like asking the Chicago Bears to change theirs.

Plenty of college teams have moved away from Native American mascots in recent years, and the NCAA has passed legislation trying to force others to do the same.  Teams have to change their logo/mascot or they can't host NCAA Championship events.  This includes the University of Utah and the University of Illinois, whose nicknames are the name of the tribe that their respective states are named after!  This is also why the University of North Dakota was forced to stop using the best name and logo in all of college sports, the Fighting Sioux.  Even though it was in the state constitution!  They're not allowed to rename the teams until next year, so they're simply the "University of North Dakota" this season.

In my opinion, the NCAA overreached with its legislation regarding Native American names and imagery.  Not to sound insensitive, but some of those names are truly meant to honor those tribes.  And it's really not any of the NCAA's business what a school wants to call its athletic teams.  If a school takes it upon itself to rebrand with a new name or logo, that's their choice.  They shouldn't be forced to by the NCAA.

Those groups that are trying to pressure the NFL into doing something about the Redskins' name are doing the exact same thing.  This wasn't an issue until they brought it up.  Rick Reilly did an excellent piece a few weeks ago where he basically called out these outspoken groups.  I obviously have no idea if he was simply making a generalization or not, but Reilly determined that white people decided they were going to be offended for Native Americans.  Again, I have no idea whether that's true or not, but the point is that this is a drummed-up controversy.  The term can be used a racial epithet.  How many people actually knew that?  I might be oversimplifying it, but when I hear "Redskin," I think of a football player.  And I bet a vast majority of people would think the same thing.

The issue has gotten enough traction that a letter was sent to Roger Goodell and the other 31 teams owners urging them to encourage Dan Snyder to change the name.  There was a meeting last week at the NFL headquarters with Redskins ownership and leaders of the Oneida Nation, where the Oneida tribe decried the name as offensive.  President Obama has even weighed in, saying he would be in favor of a name change.  Then there are the sportswriters, the ones who created this "controversy" and refuse to let it die.  There's a guy in the Washington Post who called it the "most offensive name in the history of professional sports."  Others refuse to use it in their columns about the team.

Is this really what this nation has come to?  Why is this issue such a hot-button topic that people refuse to let die?  Is there nothing else that's more pressing?  It should be a moot point.  Snyder's not changing the name.  Like it or not, they're going to be the "Washington Redskins," at least as long as he's the owner (which, by all indications, will be a while).

My biggest problem with this "controversy," though, is that it seems like the Redskins are being absolutely singled-out.  Why isn't anybody offended by the Kansas City Chiefs and their headdress-wearing fans?  What about the Atlanta Braves and the tomahawk chop?  Or the Chicago Blackhawks, whose Indian-head logo is one of the best in all of sports?  The only other team that's taken any sort of heat about its name is the Cleveland Indians.  Although, people seem to have less of a problem with the name than they do with the Chief Wahoo logo.

Frankly, I don't care what Washington's football team is called.  As long as they lose to the Giants twice a year, they can call themselves whatever they want.

Week 9 NFL Picks

I don't know about you, but I've had a very busy week.  You should see my DVR.  Anyway, this crazy week has reached Sunday, which means we've got another slate of NFL games.  And for the second straight week, we've only got 10 afternoon games because there are six teams that have byes.  And once again, that leaves us with some unspectacular matchups getting national exposure.  I'm also expecting plenty of blowouts.

Chiefs (8-0) at Bills (3-5): Kansas City-This is the undefeated Chiefs' last test before their bye, followed by the Broncos twice in three weeks.  It should be a pretty good test for Kansas City, too.  The Bills have played well at home, almost beating a couple good teams (New England, Cincinnati) in Buffalo.  However, the Bills ended up losing to the Patriots on the last play of the game and the Bengals in overtime.  I have a feeling this one will be similar.  Chiefs: 9-0.

Vikings (1-6) at Cowboys (4-4): Dallas-Minnesota's not a good team.  That's already been established.  Dallas is a good team, even though their record might not indicate it.  They, of course, lost to the Broncos in the game of the year, and had the game won last week until that ridiculous drive by the Lions in the final minute to steal the victory.  The amazing thing, though, is that the loss didn't knock Dallas out of first place.  Playing the Vikings at home, the Cowboys should move back above .500, which should be a requirement for a first-place team at this point in the season.

Titans (3-4) at Rams (3-5): Tennessee-Jeff Fisher's on the other side for the first time in this Super Bowl XXXIV rematch.  It was a rough night in St. Louis on Monday.  First, the Cardinals lost Game 5, giving the Red Sox the 3-2 lead that they eventually converted into a World Series title, then the Rams couldn't convert on a 4th-and-1 and ended up losing 14-9 to the Seahawks.  That would've been a great win for St. Louis.  Tennessee hasn't won since Week 4, but the Titans' last three opponents before their bye were Kansas City, Seattle and San Francisco.  St. Louis isn't any one of those teams.  Jeff Fisher's first game against his former team should go Tennessee's way.

Saints (6-1) at Jets (4-4): New Orleans-Rex vs. Rob.  Believe it or not, the Jets haven't had a losing streak all season.  They've alternated wins and losses over the first eight weeks.  They got clobbered, 49-9, last week in Cincinnati, so following the formula would indicate a Jets win.  In order to do that, though, they'll have to beat a Saints team that's arguably the best in the NFC.  New Orleans is the better team.  I think they do to the Jets what the Bengals did.

Chargers (4-3) at Redskins (2-5): San Diego-If the playoffs started today, the Chargers would be the second wild card in the AFC.  That says a lot about how much things have changed in San Diego this season.  Washington was Denver's designated punching bag last week, although the Redskins are starting to show signs of the team that won the NFC East last year.  This is a West Coast team playing an early game on the East Coast, which is usually a major disadvantage.  The Chargers have already won in Philadelphia and Jacksonville this year, though.  Make that three 1:00 victories for San Diego.

Falcons (2-5) at Panthers (4-3): Carolina-OK.  I've finally jumped off that Falcons bandwagon.  They're not going to make the playoffs.  They're a shell of last year's team.  At this point, Atlanta will be lucky to salvage a .500 season.  Cam Newton and the Panthers, however, are rolling.  Carolina has won three straight to suddenly jump into the playoff hunt.  With the opposite directions in which each team is headed, this pick is an easy one.

Eagles (3-5) at Raiders (3-4): Philadelphia-Ah yes.  Philadelphia vs. Oakland.  Much like Jets-Saints, the NFL is taking advantage of the 49ers' bye week to get one of the Raiders' FOX games out of the way.  Turns out I was right about the Raiders against the Steelers last week.  I don't have the same feeling about this week's game, though.  Even though the Eagles have scored a grand total of 10 points in their last two games, I'm taking Philly.

Buccaneers (0-7) at Seahawks (7-1): Seattle-Jacksonville can't lose this week, so they have a chance to move up into a tie for 31st in the power rankings if Seattle takes care of business against a woeful Tampa Bay team.  The Seahawks somehow managed to finagle two homecoming games onto their schedule.  I know I said I'm taking Seattle in every home game until they finally lose one, but the teams they're playing at Qwest Field are making those calls way too easy.  If I was allowed to, I'd probably have taken Seattle in survival football two or three times by now.

Ravens (3-4) at Browns (3-5): Baltimore-The defending champs need a win badly in the Modell Bowl.  The Ravens had their bye last week and haven't won since squeaking by Miami in Week 5.  Cleveland's come back to earth after that sudden surge right after the Trent Richardson trade.  The Bengals lost on Thursday, making this one even more important if Baltimore wants to catch Cincinnati.  After a bye, they'll be ready.  The Old Browns beat the New Browns.

Steelers (2-5) at Patriots (6-2): New England-Even though Pittsburgh is struggling, this is still one of the better games this week.  We've got Brady vs. Roethlisberger and two of the league's marquee franchises in the national late game.  The Patriots recovered nicely after that loss to the Jets by beating Miami last week, while Pittsburgh, just as I suspected they might, lost in Oakland.  The Steelers are in even more trouble if they lose.  Problem is: Boston's still delirious about the Red Sox.  The Patriots will feed off that energy and overtake Cincinnati in the race for that second playoff bye.

Colts (5-2) at Texans (2-5): Indianapolis-Back-to-back Sunday night games for the Colts, who got that win over Denver before their bye.  Of course, the matchup against the Texans was a lot more attractive before the season began.  Houston has lost five in a row and has finally handed off the quarterback reins to Case Keenum.  When you're relying on Case Keenum to save your season, you know there's problems.  On Sunday, they'll have plenty of other problems, too.  Namely, Andrew Luck and Robert Mathis.

Bears (4-3) at Packers (5-2): Green Bay-The only game all week that pits two teams that are above .500 against each other is the Monday nighter in Lambeau between the NFL's two oldest rivals.  The Packers have really been playing some good football of late and the Bears are better than their 4-3 record.  With Detroit off this week, a Chicago win could set up a three-way tie for first in the NFC North.  I don't think that'll happen, though.  The Packers are playing too well, and they're desperate to get the memory of their last Monday night game (the "Fail Mary" in Seattle) out of their minds.

BYES: Arizona, Denver, Detroit, Jacksonville, Giants, San Francisco

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-3
Season: 76-45