That was some World Series for Madison Bumgarner, huh? It's safe to say that he single-handedly won the Giants' third title in five years, and his performance is unlikely to be repeated any time soon. Three games, 21 innings, 17 strikeouts, one run allowed, two wins, one save. He threw a third of San Francisco's innings in the series and held the Royals to a .127 batting average. The craziest part is that he actually raised his career World Series ERA to 0.43.
Bumgarner just put together the single greatest World Series by a pitcher in recent memory. The only thing that even comes close is Randy Johnson in 2001, when he picked up three of the Diamondbacks' four wins, including one in relief in Game 7 the day after starting and going seven innings in Game 6.
Outside of those two, there hasn't been one pitcher that single-handedly dominated a World Series this century. (That's what all those sweeps and five-gamers will do for you.) Not even Josh Beckett in 2003. He's remembered for that 2-0 shutout in the Game 6 clincher at the Old Yankee Stadium, which earned him Series MVP honors, but Beckett actually lost Game 3 and, unlike Bumgarner and Johnson, hadn't been particularly dominant earlier in the postseason.
So, I hope everyone appreciates what we just saw from Madison Bumgarner, who's quickly developing a reputation as one of the greatest World Series pitchers ever. It's different eras, so it's not a fair comparison, but what Bumgarner did could be considered a modern-day equivalent of the single greatest World Series ever for a pitcher, Christy Mathewson's three shutouts in six days in 1905.
Unfortunately, everyone who personally remembered Mathewson's performance 109 years ago is long since dead, and those games obviously aren't preserved on video for all time. But what Bumgarner did in 2014 (and in 2010, and in 2012) will live on for eternity. He's not just on his way to becoming an October legend. He's already there. Because he's done this three World Series in a row.
I could easily go back through all the memorable World Series pitching performances in history. From Mathewson to Babe Ruth to Don Larsen to Whitey Ford to Sandy Koufax. Then there's Bob Gibson capping perhaps the most remarkable pitching season ever by going 3-0 against the Red Sox in 1967 and the Tigers' Mickey Lolich doing the same thing a year later, when he beat Gibson in Game 7.
But I'm going to limit myself just to dominant World Series pitching in my lifetime, which means we're starting in the 80s. And the 80s gave us two great ones. Royals fans remember one of them fondly. It was 1985, when Bret Saberhagen got the win in Game 3, a 6-1 victory, then tossed an 11-0 shutout in Game 7. Three years later it was Orel Hershiser, whose 1988 season was one of the greatest ever for a pitcher. He capped it off by winning World Series MVP honors after going 2-0 and giving up a total of two runs and seven hits in his two starts.
And, of course, there's my single favorite World Series pitching performance ever. The reason I think Jack Morris belongs in the Hall of Fame. His 10-inning, 1-0 shutout in Game 7 of the 1991 World Series is something I'll never forget. But he also got the win in Game 1 of that series and came out of Game 4 with the Twins leading 2-1, eventually getting a no-decision in a 3-2 loss. Those remarkable October efforts all pale in comparison to the World Series legend that is Madison Bumgarner, though.
Perhaps it's only fitting that we end one of the most pitching-dominant years in recent memory by talking about the amazing pitching of a left-hander that plays in the National League West. It's just not the NL West lefty we thought we'd be talking about. I guess we shouldn't be surprised, though. Because the Giants are building a dynasty. As long as they've got Bumgarner, they might continue winning the World Series in even-numbered years for the foreseeable future. So, Bay Area, you might as well start planning that 2016 championship parade now.
Friday, October 31, 2014
Tuesday, October 28, 2014
The World Series Isn't Dying
Last week on the off day between Games 2 and 3 of the World Series, there was an article in the New York Times lamenting the "death" of baseball. They do this every year, using the declining ratings for the World Series as their evidence. "Only" 12.2 million people watched Game 1. And you know what? MLB and FOX don't really care.
We're long past the days where the World Series is going to pull in a 20-plus rating simply for being on. That's true of all TV. Especially broadcast TV. Besides, ratings don't tell the whole story anymore. You can watch the game on any number of mobile devices, and this year was the first time that MLB.tv subscribers were able to watch the World Series on their computers. These viewers aren't taken into account. Neither are the ones who find some sort of pirated stream and watch illegally.
People have a lot more options. FOX knows this. Yet they just paid more (by a significant amount) for rights to the World Series until 2021 than in their previous contract that expired last season. Why do you think they willingly moved pretty much all of their Division Series and LCS games to the fledgling Fox Sports 1? Because they'd love to get a 12.2 rating on Fox Sports 1. And if they got that rating on cable, nobody would be saying anything about it. (It also gave them a chance to double-dip and avoid pissing off the fans of their primetime shows that would otherwise have been preempted by baseball.)
These same critics say the same thing about the All*Star Game, which FOX and MLB make a point to put on the broadcast network even in this new cable-heavy contract. I also think it's important to point out that the MLB All*Star Game is the only one of the four that isn't on cable, and that it's still one of the highest-rated events of the summer.
But the critics are quick to note that World Series ratings have been on the decline since the last time the Royals were there, when an average of 34.5 million viewers watched in 1985. (The all-time high was 44 million for Dodgers-Yankees in 1978, when there were about three viewing options for the American public in primetime.) They're also quick to point out that the past nine years have produced the eight least-watched World Series in history. Ironically, MLB moved from a Saturday start to a midweek start in 2007 because they thought more people would watch during the week, so they got rid of that second weekend.
Well, in the five years from 2004-08, the World Series never lasted longer than five games. This is only the fourth time since 2003 that there's even been a Game 6, and Cardinals-Rangers in 2011 was the only seven-game series in that span. Ratings generally get better as the series goes on, as evidence by the 25 million viewers for Game 7 in 2011. If the series isn't competitive, there's little reason to watch.
And, this might not be a fair point to make, but this World Series involves the Kansas City Royals. They're a great story, and America has certainly adopted the Royals. But that doesn't change the fact that Kansas City isn't a major market. In fact, it's the second-smallest in the Majors. The World Series ratings are phenomenal in Kansas City, but 60 percent of the TVs in Kansas City is nowhere close to 60 percent of the TVs in LA. (Why do you think the only World Series in the last nine years not in the bottom eight all-time was Yankees-Phillies in 2009?) Bigger markets drive ratings, and, no offense to the Royals, but casual fans are more likely to tune in when one of the marquee teams is playing.
It's also unfair to compare the World Series ratings to the behemoth that is the NFL. NBC's Sunday Night Football is the highest-rated "show" in all of primetime. Football took over as America's favorite sport to watch on TV a long time ago. Everyone knows this. So comparing baseball's ratings to football's is apples and oranges. It's not like comparing two TV shows that air at the same time. The World Series isn't in danger of being cancelled by FOX because more people watched the football game on Sunday night.
Sunday night was the only time in the entire series that the World Series was scheduled to go head-to-head against the NFL. They moved the start from Wednesday to Tuesday so that Thursday would be the off day and they wouldn't have to go against Thursday Night Football. There are two reasons for this. First, they know they're not going to compete with football. But that also meant people wouldn't have to choose between the two.
Another comparison made in the New York Times article was to the World Cup this past summer. The rating for the USA-Portugal game was roughly 25 million, or, twice the rating for Game 1 of the World Series. Again, it's apples and oranges. That game aired against very little competition on a Sunday afternoon in the summer. (Why do you think NBC's Olympic ratings are always so high?) The World Series airs in primetime against first-run scripted programming on weeknights in October.
I also hate it when people blame the 8:00 start times for the World Series' ratings. "How are kids supposed to watch when the games end at midnight?," is the argument. Well, how early do you want them to start? Keep in mind, the West Coast is three hours behind, so it's 5:00 there. And FOX has responded to that criticism. They used to come on the air at 8 and start the game at 8:30. Now they come on at 7:30 and the game starts at 8. That means it's over at 11:15-11:30. Too late? I don't think so.
For those people that want an afternoon game, I've got news for you. It ain't gonna happen! You're not having an afternoon game during the week when people are at work, you can't do Sunday afternoon because of the NFL, and Saturday afternoons are college football. In fact, until this year, FOX always had an NFL doubleheader on the Sunday of the World Series, so that game has to start later than the others because they have to wait until football is over. (It wasn't even a FOX doubleheader this week and Eagles-Cardinals still ran until 7:45, with postgame going right into baseball coverage.)
Trying to appease people, they tried an early start for the Saturday game in 2010, which was Game 3. Pregame started at 6:30 and first pitch was a little after 7. And you know what? The ratings were even worse! So much for that idea. The experiment lasted a total of one year. In 2011, they moved to the 7:30 pregame/8:00 start for all games. (The only exceptions are that Saturday night might be 7:00/7:30, and Sunday might be later because of football.)
Fewer people are watching baseball. So what? Those that want to still are. And those millions have been seeing a pretty good series.
We're long past the days where the World Series is going to pull in a 20-plus rating simply for being on. That's true of all TV. Especially broadcast TV. Besides, ratings don't tell the whole story anymore. You can watch the game on any number of mobile devices, and this year was the first time that MLB.tv subscribers were able to watch the World Series on their computers. These viewers aren't taken into account. Neither are the ones who find some sort of pirated stream and watch illegally.
People have a lot more options. FOX knows this. Yet they just paid more (by a significant amount) for rights to the World Series until 2021 than in their previous contract that expired last season. Why do you think they willingly moved pretty much all of their Division Series and LCS games to the fledgling Fox Sports 1? Because they'd love to get a 12.2 rating on Fox Sports 1. And if they got that rating on cable, nobody would be saying anything about it. (It also gave them a chance to double-dip and avoid pissing off the fans of their primetime shows that would otherwise have been preempted by baseball.)
These same critics say the same thing about the All*Star Game, which FOX and MLB make a point to put on the broadcast network even in this new cable-heavy contract. I also think it's important to point out that the MLB All*Star Game is the only one of the four that isn't on cable, and that it's still one of the highest-rated events of the summer.
But the critics are quick to note that World Series ratings have been on the decline since the last time the Royals were there, when an average of 34.5 million viewers watched in 1985. (The all-time high was 44 million for Dodgers-Yankees in 1978, when there were about three viewing options for the American public in primetime.) They're also quick to point out that the past nine years have produced the eight least-watched World Series in history. Ironically, MLB moved from a Saturday start to a midweek start in 2007 because they thought more people would watch during the week, so they got rid of that second weekend.
Well, in the five years from 2004-08, the World Series never lasted longer than five games. This is only the fourth time since 2003 that there's even been a Game 6, and Cardinals-Rangers in 2011 was the only seven-game series in that span. Ratings generally get better as the series goes on, as evidence by the 25 million viewers for Game 7 in 2011. If the series isn't competitive, there's little reason to watch.
And, this might not be a fair point to make, but this World Series involves the Kansas City Royals. They're a great story, and America has certainly adopted the Royals. But that doesn't change the fact that Kansas City isn't a major market. In fact, it's the second-smallest in the Majors. The World Series ratings are phenomenal in Kansas City, but 60 percent of the TVs in Kansas City is nowhere close to 60 percent of the TVs in LA. (Why do you think the only World Series in the last nine years not in the bottom eight all-time was Yankees-Phillies in 2009?) Bigger markets drive ratings, and, no offense to the Royals, but casual fans are more likely to tune in when one of the marquee teams is playing.
It's also unfair to compare the World Series ratings to the behemoth that is the NFL. NBC's Sunday Night Football is the highest-rated "show" in all of primetime. Football took over as America's favorite sport to watch on TV a long time ago. Everyone knows this. So comparing baseball's ratings to football's is apples and oranges. It's not like comparing two TV shows that air at the same time. The World Series isn't in danger of being cancelled by FOX because more people watched the football game on Sunday night.
Sunday night was the only time in the entire series that the World Series was scheduled to go head-to-head against the NFL. They moved the start from Wednesday to Tuesday so that Thursday would be the off day and they wouldn't have to go against Thursday Night Football. There are two reasons for this. First, they know they're not going to compete with football. But that also meant people wouldn't have to choose between the two.
Another comparison made in the New York Times article was to the World Cup this past summer. The rating for the USA-Portugal game was roughly 25 million, or, twice the rating for Game 1 of the World Series. Again, it's apples and oranges. That game aired against very little competition on a Sunday afternoon in the summer. (Why do you think NBC's Olympic ratings are always so high?) The World Series airs in primetime against first-run scripted programming on weeknights in October.
I also hate it when people blame the 8:00 start times for the World Series' ratings. "How are kids supposed to watch when the games end at midnight?," is the argument. Well, how early do you want them to start? Keep in mind, the West Coast is three hours behind, so it's 5:00 there. And FOX has responded to that criticism. They used to come on the air at 8 and start the game at 8:30. Now they come on at 7:30 and the game starts at 8. That means it's over at 11:15-11:30. Too late? I don't think so.
For those people that want an afternoon game, I've got news for you. It ain't gonna happen! You're not having an afternoon game during the week when people are at work, you can't do Sunday afternoon because of the NFL, and Saturday afternoons are college football. In fact, until this year, FOX always had an NFL doubleheader on the Sunday of the World Series, so that game has to start later than the others because they have to wait until football is over. (It wasn't even a FOX doubleheader this week and Eagles-Cardinals still ran until 7:45, with postgame going right into baseball coverage.)
Trying to appease people, they tried an early start for the Saturday game in 2010, which was Game 3. Pregame started at 6:30 and first pitch was a little after 7. And you know what? The ratings were even worse! So much for that idea. The experiment lasted a total of one year. In 2011, they moved to the 7:30 pregame/8:00 start for all games. (The only exceptions are that Saturday night might be 7:00/7:30, and Sunday might be later because of football.)
Fewer people are watching baseball. So what? Those that want to still are. And those millions have been seeing a pretty good series.
Sunday, October 26, 2014
The Rest of Week 8
Only the NFL would schedule a game at 9:30 in the morning and think it's a good idea. Of course, that's because they decided to have three London games this year, and they decided that they wanted to start one in the afternoon their time and see how the 9:30 a.m. start would go over. I'd imagine the World Series has something to do with it, too. Because FOX usually has a doubleheader on the Sunday of the World Series, but this year they don't. Falcons-Lions from London is their national game instead.
Thursday night: Denver (Win)
Lions (5-2) vs. Falcons (2-5): Detroit-This is technically an Atlanta home game, which doesn't really seem fair because they were away last week and they play two more road games after the bye. The Falcons are a better team at home, but by "home" I mean Atlanta. The trip across the pond might be difficult for them. Especially since the Lions are on a roll. They've won four out of five. Make that five out of six.
Ravens (5-2) at Bengals (3-2-1): Baltimore-The battle for first place in the AFC North (although not really because that stupid tie will leave Cincinnati percentage points behind Baltimore even if the Ravens win). Cincinnati's not the same team it was at the beginning of the season. Of course the schedule has gotten meatier, but the Bengals need to put up a good showing in these games, which is something they haven't done. I just don't have much confidence in them right now, so I think the Ravens go on the road and pick up a division win.
Texans (3-4) at Titans (2-5): Houston-Because the rules say the AFC South teams have to play each other twice a year. Houston was 3-1. Then they lost to Dallas, Indianapolis and Pittsburgh. It's not entirely their fault (the Cowboys and Colts are first-place teams after all), but it's certainly put them in a position of badly needing a win to avoid the division getting completely away from them. Fortunately, this week they draw the Titans, who couldn't pull it out in Washington last week.
Rams (2-4) at Chiefs (3-3): Kansas City-Imagine, just for a second, that the Cardinals had won the National League pennant. Had that happened, it'd be quite a sports day in the State of Missouri. As it is, it's still a pretty good day for fans in Kansas City. First the Chiefs, then home to watch the Royals. Regardless of how the baseball game goes, those fans should be able to count on at least one win.
Bears (3-4) at Patriots (5-2): New England-I'm almost at the point of completely giving up on the Chicago Bears. At least that's happening before December this year. The game's not in Chicago, which improves the Bears' chances, but they're just 1-2 against the AFC East this year and the win was over the Jets, so that doesn't really count. It also doesn't help that it looks like the Patriots have found their groove.
Bills (4-3) at Jets (1-6): Buffalo-The traveling circus that is Rex Ryan and the New York Jets heads home to the Meadowlands this week. This actually seems like it's a pretty good chance for them to end this six-game losing streak. Especially since they almost pulled off the upset last week against the Patriots. They didn't, though, and the record says 1-6. The Bills are the better team in this matchup, although I am a little concerned about their running back situation.
Vikings (2-5) at Buccaneers (1-5): Tampa Bay-Another interesting matchup between two bad teams. It's not that either one is Raiders/Jaguars/Jets level of bad, but they've both fallen behind the eight ball in their respective division races. Although, the Bucs aren't in as bad a shape as the Vikings, especially with how mediocre the NFC South has become. Tampa Bay's played some competitive games against good teams this year, so Minnesota should be a win.
Seahawks (3-3) at Panthers (3-3-1): Seattle-CBS took this game away from FOX for some reason, yet they didn't make it the doubleheader. I still don't quite understand why, but I'm willing to go with it if you are. Anyway, it's crazy to think that one of these teams, the top two seeds in the NFC last year, will be below .500 after this game. It's even crazier to think the Seahawks might lose their third in a row. I just don't see that happening. Seattle's the pick.
Dolphins (3-3) at Jaguars (1-6): Miami-This is what I get for actually having belief in Cleveland. They go lay a total egg and push Jacksonville into the win column. All that really does is move the Jaguars past the Raiders into 31st place in the power rankings. They're still not a good team. If the Dolphins do what the Browns failed to do and actually show up for the game, it shouldn't be a problem.
Eagles (5-1) at Cardinals (5-1): Philadelphia-With the Cowboys playing on Monday night, the winner of this one will temporarily share the NFC's best record with Dallas. I bet FOX wishes they did have their usual World Series doubleheader. Because the way this season has gone so far makes this a pretty good national late game. The Cardinals have played some of their best football this season against elite teams, and playing Philadelphia in Phoenix is a definite advantage. I just have a feeling the Eagles are going to win, though.
Raiders (0-6) at Browns (3-3): Cleveland-Jacksonville and Oakland back-to-back. Should be a couple easy wins, right? Tell that to Cleveland. The Browns had 6-2 staring them in the face. Now they don't. But what's the best way to recover from an absolutely miserable performance? Getting the Raiders at home. Back over .500 for Cleveland.
Colts (5-2) at Steelers (4-3): Indianapolis-I'll admit it. I don't get the Pittsburgh Steelers. They look completely hapless one week, then look elite the next. It's not like they play to the level of their opponent, either. The Colts, though, are rolling. Five straight wins after starting 0-2, and a 27-0 thumping of the Bengals last week. Indy's Peyton-era 12-4's might become a regular thing again. They should be halfway to 12-4 after beating the Steelers.
Packers (5-2) at Saints (2-4): Green Bay-Will America watch Bumgarner vs. Shields or Rodgers vs. Brees? That question was rhetorical. I know the answer is the football game. That's why NBC and the NFL picked this matchup to go against the World Series. It should be an entertaining game, I'll say that much. And maybe the baseball game will end early enough for me to watch some of it. The Packers should be comfortably ahead by then. New Orleans is just missing something. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's why a team as talented as many think the Saints are will drop to 2-5.
Redskins (2-5) at Cowboys (6-1): Dallas-Even though Washington sucks and Dallas is good for the first time in a couple years, there's something about a Cowboys-Redskins Monday night game that just seems right. It's just like Packers-Bears. It doesn't matter how good each team is, the rivalry brings out the best in both. For Dallas to stay in the "best team in football" conversation, losing at home to lowly Washington simply isn't an option. Although, a win would make the Redskins' season.
BYE: Giants (3-4), San Francisco (4-3)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-6
Season: 71-35-1
Thursday night: Denver (Win)
Lions (5-2) vs. Falcons (2-5): Detroit-This is technically an Atlanta home game, which doesn't really seem fair because they were away last week and they play two more road games after the bye. The Falcons are a better team at home, but by "home" I mean Atlanta. The trip across the pond might be difficult for them. Especially since the Lions are on a roll. They've won four out of five. Make that five out of six.
Ravens (5-2) at Bengals (3-2-1): Baltimore-The battle for first place in the AFC North (although not really because that stupid tie will leave Cincinnati percentage points behind Baltimore even if the Ravens win). Cincinnati's not the same team it was at the beginning of the season. Of course the schedule has gotten meatier, but the Bengals need to put up a good showing in these games, which is something they haven't done. I just don't have much confidence in them right now, so I think the Ravens go on the road and pick up a division win.
Texans (3-4) at Titans (2-5): Houston-Because the rules say the AFC South teams have to play each other twice a year. Houston was 3-1. Then they lost to Dallas, Indianapolis and Pittsburgh. It's not entirely their fault (the Cowboys and Colts are first-place teams after all), but it's certainly put them in a position of badly needing a win to avoid the division getting completely away from them. Fortunately, this week they draw the Titans, who couldn't pull it out in Washington last week.
Rams (2-4) at Chiefs (3-3): Kansas City-Imagine, just for a second, that the Cardinals had won the National League pennant. Had that happened, it'd be quite a sports day in the State of Missouri. As it is, it's still a pretty good day for fans in Kansas City. First the Chiefs, then home to watch the Royals. Regardless of how the baseball game goes, those fans should be able to count on at least one win.
Bears (3-4) at Patriots (5-2): New England-I'm almost at the point of completely giving up on the Chicago Bears. At least that's happening before December this year. The game's not in Chicago, which improves the Bears' chances, but they're just 1-2 against the AFC East this year and the win was over the Jets, so that doesn't really count. It also doesn't help that it looks like the Patriots have found their groove.
Bills (4-3) at Jets (1-6): Buffalo-The traveling circus that is Rex Ryan and the New York Jets heads home to the Meadowlands this week. This actually seems like it's a pretty good chance for them to end this six-game losing streak. Especially since they almost pulled off the upset last week against the Patriots. They didn't, though, and the record says 1-6. The Bills are the better team in this matchup, although I am a little concerned about their running back situation.
Vikings (2-5) at Buccaneers (1-5): Tampa Bay-Another interesting matchup between two bad teams. It's not that either one is Raiders/Jaguars/Jets level of bad, but they've both fallen behind the eight ball in their respective division races. Although, the Bucs aren't in as bad a shape as the Vikings, especially with how mediocre the NFC South has become. Tampa Bay's played some competitive games against good teams this year, so Minnesota should be a win.
Seahawks (3-3) at Panthers (3-3-1): Seattle-CBS took this game away from FOX for some reason, yet they didn't make it the doubleheader. I still don't quite understand why, but I'm willing to go with it if you are. Anyway, it's crazy to think that one of these teams, the top two seeds in the NFC last year, will be below .500 after this game. It's even crazier to think the Seahawks might lose their third in a row. I just don't see that happening. Seattle's the pick.
Dolphins (3-3) at Jaguars (1-6): Miami-This is what I get for actually having belief in Cleveland. They go lay a total egg and push Jacksonville into the win column. All that really does is move the Jaguars past the Raiders into 31st place in the power rankings. They're still not a good team. If the Dolphins do what the Browns failed to do and actually show up for the game, it shouldn't be a problem.
Eagles (5-1) at Cardinals (5-1): Philadelphia-With the Cowboys playing on Monday night, the winner of this one will temporarily share the NFC's best record with Dallas. I bet FOX wishes they did have their usual World Series doubleheader. Because the way this season has gone so far makes this a pretty good national late game. The Cardinals have played some of their best football this season against elite teams, and playing Philadelphia in Phoenix is a definite advantage. I just have a feeling the Eagles are going to win, though.
Raiders (0-6) at Browns (3-3): Cleveland-Jacksonville and Oakland back-to-back. Should be a couple easy wins, right? Tell that to Cleveland. The Browns had 6-2 staring them in the face. Now they don't. But what's the best way to recover from an absolutely miserable performance? Getting the Raiders at home. Back over .500 for Cleveland.
Colts (5-2) at Steelers (4-3): Indianapolis-I'll admit it. I don't get the Pittsburgh Steelers. They look completely hapless one week, then look elite the next. It's not like they play to the level of their opponent, either. The Colts, though, are rolling. Five straight wins after starting 0-2, and a 27-0 thumping of the Bengals last week. Indy's Peyton-era 12-4's might become a regular thing again. They should be halfway to 12-4 after beating the Steelers.
Packers (5-2) at Saints (2-4): Green Bay-Will America watch Bumgarner vs. Shields or Rodgers vs. Brees? That question was rhetorical. I know the answer is the football game. That's why NBC and the NFL picked this matchup to go against the World Series. It should be an entertaining game, I'll say that much. And maybe the baseball game will end early enough for me to watch some of it. The Packers should be comfortably ahead by then. New Orleans is just missing something. I can't quite put my finger on it, but it's why a team as talented as many think the Saints are will drop to 2-5.
Redskins (2-5) at Cowboys (6-1): Dallas-Even though Washington sucks and Dallas is good for the first time in a couple years, there's something about a Cowboys-Redskins Monday night game that just seems right. It's just like Packers-Bears. It doesn't matter how good each team is, the rivalry brings out the best in both. For Dallas to stay in the "best team in football" conversation, losing at home to lowly Washington simply isn't an option. Although, a win would make the Redskins' season.
BYE: Giants (3-4), San Francisco (4-3)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-6
Season: 71-35-1
Thursday, October 23, 2014
Where's the Love?
A few weeks ago, a group of women's soccer players from different countries combined forces to sue FIFA because of what they called "unfair playing conditions." Their argument centers around next year's Women's World Cup in Canada, where five of the six venues will use FieldTurf rather than natural grass. The only exception is Commonwealth Stadium in Edmonton.
When I first saw this, I kind of scoffed at it. After all, they used some of the same venues at this summer's Under-20 World Cup and no problems were reported. (Sidebar about that tournament, when I was in Montreal, I actually stayed in the same hotel as the French and South Korean teams.) But their main complaint wasn't about the FieldTurf. It was about the fact that FIFA would never ask men's teams to play on FieldTurf during their World Cup, even if indoor venues are being used (I can still remember the grass pitch installed in the Silverdome during the 1994 World Cup). So, basically, it's a gender discrimination suit.
Then I looked at things a little more closely and realized they have a point. It might not seem like that big a deal, but they're right. Men's players would be so up in arms about the prospect of playing a World Cup on turf that FIFA wouldn't even ask them to. Yet, for the women, that's not a problem. It does seem unfair.
The thing that pushed me over the edge, though, was watching the CONCACAF qualifying tournament that's been going on over the past two weeks. That's right. Two weeks. In October. This is what FIFA does for Women's World Cup qualifying. For the men, it's a two-year process that culminates with the "Hex," a 10-game home-and-home double round robin between the top six teams in the region that begins in March and ends in September. Yet the final round of women's qualifying is one two-week tournament.
I understand that there are far fewer women's teams. In CONCACAF especially. And that finances are a problem in many of them (the stories about the teams from Haiti and Trinidad/Tobago were well-publicized in the lead-up to the tournament). So, it's much easier to hold a tournament rather than making these poorly-funded teams travel all over the region multiple times. It's the structure of that tournament that I have a problem with, though, and it's what makes me think the female players named in the lawsuit are on to something.
For those of you who haven't been following it, the CONCACAF Women's Championship (which is the tournament's official name) is an eight-team event that has been playing doubleheaders in MLS stadiums for the past 10 days. One group plays a doubleheader one day, the other group plays the next day, then everybody moves to a different city for the next game. As for the rest between games, there isn't any. Each team played its first game in Kansas City, then its second in Chicago two days later. There's even only one day off between the semifinals and final! That schedule is ridiculous and, again, it's something they would never ask a senior men's national team to do.
As you probably could've guessed, the attendance at the games not involving the U.S. has been (to put it nicely) minimal. Although, I can't really blame people in Kansas City for not wanting to go to a Guatemala-Haiti women's soccer game on the same night the Royals were clinching the pennant. But that doesn't change the fact it's not really fair to have two teams from the Caribbean playing outdoors at night in Chicago in October in front of 200 fans.
And the TV coverage of this event has been virtually nonexistent. One of FOX's first big gets for Fox Sports 1 was the FIFA rights. The Women's World Cup will be the first tournament that's a part of that deal, so they've been the ones airing the qualifying tournament. Except there's still no one that watches Fox Sports 1 (full disclosure, I only remembered the soccer was even happening because of a commercial during the NLCS). Most people don't even know what channel it is. The games that aren't on Fox Sports 1 (basically all the ones not involving the U.S.), are on Fox Sports 2, a channel whose existence I might be making some of you aware of for the first time right now.
Contrast that to the qualifying cycle for the recently-concluded men's World Cup. ESPN didn't just show all of the American home games, they showed all of the Mexican home games, too. USA Soccer made a separate deal for the road games, which aired on beIn Sport. That caused an outrage, because I don't know of a single cable system that actually carried beIn Sport last summer (it was just added to mine a couple months ago, and I immediately questioned the timing, since qualifying for Russia doesn't even start until 2016).
Women's soccer is growing. The 2011 World Cup in Germany was the best one yet, and the field for Canada has been expanded from 16 teams to 24. Countries like Thailand, Cameroon and Switzerland have already qualified to make their Women's World Cup debuts. But there's still plenty of room to grow, and as much as FIFA is helping the cause, it's also somewhat holding the game back. Otherwise, they wouldn't be playing the World Cup on turf and they'd get more than one off day during the qualifying tournament.
When I first saw this, I kind of scoffed at it. After all, they used some of the same venues at this summer's Under-20 World Cup and no problems were reported. (Sidebar about that tournament, when I was in Montreal, I actually stayed in the same hotel as the French and South Korean teams.) But their main complaint wasn't about the FieldTurf. It was about the fact that FIFA would never ask men's teams to play on FieldTurf during their World Cup, even if indoor venues are being used (I can still remember the grass pitch installed in the Silverdome during the 1994 World Cup). So, basically, it's a gender discrimination suit.
Then I looked at things a little more closely and realized they have a point. It might not seem like that big a deal, but they're right. Men's players would be so up in arms about the prospect of playing a World Cup on turf that FIFA wouldn't even ask them to. Yet, for the women, that's not a problem. It does seem unfair.
The thing that pushed me over the edge, though, was watching the CONCACAF qualifying tournament that's been going on over the past two weeks. That's right. Two weeks. In October. This is what FIFA does for Women's World Cup qualifying. For the men, it's a two-year process that culminates with the "Hex," a 10-game home-and-home double round robin between the top six teams in the region that begins in March and ends in September. Yet the final round of women's qualifying is one two-week tournament.
I understand that there are far fewer women's teams. In CONCACAF especially. And that finances are a problem in many of them (the stories about the teams from Haiti and Trinidad/Tobago were well-publicized in the lead-up to the tournament). So, it's much easier to hold a tournament rather than making these poorly-funded teams travel all over the region multiple times. It's the structure of that tournament that I have a problem with, though, and it's what makes me think the female players named in the lawsuit are on to something.
For those of you who haven't been following it, the CONCACAF Women's Championship (which is the tournament's official name) is an eight-team event that has been playing doubleheaders in MLS stadiums for the past 10 days. One group plays a doubleheader one day, the other group plays the next day, then everybody moves to a different city for the next game. As for the rest between games, there isn't any. Each team played its first game in Kansas City, then its second in Chicago two days later. There's even only one day off between the semifinals and final! That schedule is ridiculous and, again, it's something they would never ask a senior men's national team to do.
As you probably could've guessed, the attendance at the games not involving the U.S. has been (to put it nicely) minimal. Although, I can't really blame people in Kansas City for not wanting to go to a Guatemala-Haiti women's soccer game on the same night the Royals were clinching the pennant. But that doesn't change the fact it's not really fair to have two teams from the Caribbean playing outdoors at night in Chicago in October in front of 200 fans.
And the TV coverage of this event has been virtually nonexistent. One of FOX's first big gets for Fox Sports 1 was the FIFA rights. The Women's World Cup will be the first tournament that's a part of that deal, so they've been the ones airing the qualifying tournament. Except there's still no one that watches Fox Sports 1 (full disclosure, I only remembered the soccer was even happening because of a commercial during the NLCS). Most people don't even know what channel it is. The games that aren't on Fox Sports 1 (basically all the ones not involving the U.S.), are on Fox Sports 2, a channel whose existence I might be making some of you aware of for the first time right now.
Contrast that to the qualifying cycle for the recently-concluded men's World Cup. ESPN didn't just show all of the American home games, they showed all of the Mexican home games, too. USA Soccer made a separate deal for the road games, which aired on beIn Sport. That caused an outrage, because I don't know of a single cable system that actually carried beIn Sport last summer (it was just added to mine a couple months ago, and I immediately questioned the timing, since qualifying for Russia doesn't even start until 2016).
Women's soccer is growing. The 2011 World Cup in Germany was the best one yet, and the field for Canada has been expanded from 16 teams to 24. Countries like Thailand, Cameroon and Switzerland have already qualified to make their Women's World Cup debuts. But there's still plenty of room to grow, and as much as FIFA is helping the cause, it's also somewhat holding the game back. Otherwise, they wouldn't be playing the World Cup on turf and they'd get more than one off day during the qualifying tournament.
Tuesday, October 21, 2014
The Unlikely World Series
OK. So...raise your hand if you thought this would be the World Series matchup at the start of the season. I'll even give you the start of the playoffs. If you said "Yes," you're either a liar or you should've gone to Vegas and cashed in. But yet here we are. The Giants and the Royals. America's newest darlings against the team that never loses in October. Well, one of them's got to lose.
One of these two is guaranteed to set a record with their 12th win of the postseason. Of course, the Royals have already set a record by starting 8-0, and they've actually won 11 straight playoff games dating back to Game 5 of the 1985 World Series. But that's nothing to the Giants. They've never lost a playoff series under Bruce Bochy. Nine postseason rounds and counting. San Francisco hasn't lost a postseason round since 2003, while the Royals haven't dropped a postseason round in 30 years. Something's obviously got to change. Either the Royals will cap this remarkable run with an unlikely championship or the Giants will affirm their status as a modern baseball dynasty by winning their third title in five years. (I actually went and did some research today and found that only eight Giants have been active for all three World Series--Buster Posey, Pablo Sandoval and six pitchers.)
Before I move on to the analysis and pick, some more fun facts. This is the second all-wild card series, and the other one also involved the Giants (in 2002 against the Angels). It's the first World Series in a full 162-game season in which neither participant won at least 90 games. And, this one's obvious, but they're the first wild card teams to make the World Series since the Wild Card Games were added in 2012.
Anyway, on to the breakdown. I'll start with this interminable wait we've had to endure since the matchup was locked in last Thursday. We've been waiting so long that Madison Bumgarner, who started the Giants' last game, will be on regular rest for Game 1. I can't remember there being this long of a wait between the end of the LCS and the start of the World Series since 2002...when we were rewarded with an entertaining seven-game classic.
Frankly, I was a little worried about the wait. If the Giants hadn't won Game 5, that would've been bad news for the Royals. Because the team that has the long layoff after their LCS while the other one goes deep has traditionally not done well in the Series. In 2012, the Giants and Cardinals played seven while the Tigers swept the Yankees. Then the Giants swept the Tigers in the World Series. The same thing happened in 2007 when the Red Sox beat the Rockies and 2006 when the Cardinals beat the Tigers. Detroit and Colorado won a total of one game in those three Fall Classics. However, with both teams getting a similar layoff, there's no advantage for San Francisco there. Instead, I think it's more likely we see a series more like 2002.
San Francisco does have the advantage in Game 1, though. Madison Bumgarner will be making his third career World Series start. He's 2-0 with a 0.00 ERA in his World Series career. And both those starts came on the road. James Shields did get the win in Game 2 in 2008, which was Tampa Bay's only victory over the Phillies, but the Giants certainly have the edge in the battle of the aces. The fact that both of Bumgarner's previous World Series starts can't be overlooked, either. He's also 2-0 on the road this postseason, with that shutout over the Pirates in the Wild Card Game.
There is an X factor I'm curious about, though. The Giants, who went a combined 8-1 in 2010 and 2012, had home field advantage in both series. They won both games in San Francisco each time. This year they're starting on the road. Will that make a difference? I think it might. Because going home tied 1-1 or down 0-2 is much different than going on the road up 2-0.
I also wonder who will DH for the Giants. Travis Ishikawa's not an outfielder. So, if it were up to me, Ishikawa would DH and Juan Perez would play left, even though Michael Morse seems like the obvious choice to DH. Speaking of DHs, I'm so happy for all of the Royals, but Billy Butler especially. He's been in Kansas City the longest. There's no chance Butler will play the field in San Francisco (it would make absolutely no sense to have him play first and take Hosmer out of the lineup, and that's the only possible position Butler could play). But the Royals only lose their No. 5 hitter in three of the seven games, and they get Butler back for Games 6 and 7. That could be important.
But if there's anything we've learned over the last month, it's that Kansas City isn't reliant on Billy Butler's bat. The Royals are a fun team to watch. Because they can win games in any number of ways. They hit the fewest home runs in the American League, but in the playoffs, they've used the long ball as a weapon. And it hasn't just been one guy. Hosmer, Moustakas, Gordon, Escobar, Cain, they've all gotten involved. Then there's the element of speed, which is something the Royals have that few other teams do. That's how they won the AL Wild Card Game, and they might be able to (literally) steal a run or two late in a close game. With that unhittable bullpen, those manufactured runs could be the difference.
When it comes to manufacturing runs, though, no team does it better than the Giants. This team is built for October, which is why they thrive this time of the year. San Francisco was one out away from losing Game 2 against Washington, put together three straight hits to tie the game, then won it on Brandon Belt's home run in the 18th. That was their last homer for six games (of which they won four) before finally breaking out for four, including Travis Ishikawa's pennant-clinching walk-off shot, in the NLCS Game 5 clincher. Plus, they've got Bumgarner, the best pitcher in the series, and that experience can't be discounted.
Assuming Bumgarner wins Game 1, it's imperative the Royals take Game 2. Because if they don't, the series won't be long, and the Giants will do something they didn't do in 2010 or 2012...clinch the championship on their home field. If we have a deep series that goes back to Kansas City, though, that favors the Royals. You know that crowd will be electric in Games 6 and 7, and having the last at-bat will prove vital for a team that simply refuses to lose. It would also give the Royals a chance to clinch all four rounds at home.
Common sense says to pick the Giants. But there's just something about this Royals team. They don't know what the hell they're doing, and it's fantastic to watch. There's only one way for this ride to end. Kansas City in seven.
One of these two is guaranteed to set a record with their 12th win of the postseason. Of course, the Royals have already set a record by starting 8-0, and they've actually won 11 straight playoff games dating back to Game 5 of the 1985 World Series. But that's nothing to the Giants. They've never lost a playoff series under Bruce Bochy. Nine postseason rounds and counting. San Francisco hasn't lost a postseason round since 2003, while the Royals haven't dropped a postseason round in 30 years. Something's obviously got to change. Either the Royals will cap this remarkable run with an unlikely championship or the Giants will affirm their status as a modern baseball dynasty by winning their third title in five years. (I actually went and did some research today and found that only eight Giants have been active for all three World Series--Buster Posey, Pablo Sandoval and six pitchers.)
Before I move on to the analysis and pick, some more fun facts. This is the second all-wild card series, and the other one also involved the Giants (in 2002 against the Angels). It's the first World Series in a full 162-game season in which neither participant won at least 90 games. And, this one's obvious, but they're the first wild card teams to make the World Series since the Wild Card Games were added in 2012.
Anyway, on to the breakdown. I'll start with this interminable wait we've had to endure since the matchup was locked in last Thursday. We've been waiting so long that Madison Bumgarner, who started the Giants' last game, will be on regular rest for Game 1. I can't remember there being this long of a wait between the end of the LCS and the start of the World Series since 2002...when we were rewarded with an entertaining seven-game classic.
Frankly, I was a little worried about the wait. If the Giants hadn't won Game 5, that would've been bad news for the Royals. Because the team that has the long layoff after their LCS while the other one goes deep has traditionally not done well in the Series. In 2012, the Giants and Cardinals played seven while the Tigers swept the Yankees. Then the Giants swept the Tigers in the World Series. The same thing happened in 2007 when the Red Sox beat the Rockies and 2006 when the Cardinals beat the Tigers. Detroit and Colorado won a total of one game in those three Fall Classics. However, with both teams getting a similar layoff, there's no advantage for San Francisco there. Instead, I think it's more likely we see a series more like 2002.
San Francisco does have the advantage in Game 1, though. Madison Bumgarner will be making his third career World Series start. He's 2-0 with a 0.00 ERA in his World Series career. And both those starts came on the road. James Shields did get the win in Game 2 in 2008, which was Tampa Bay's only victory over the Phillies, but the Giants certainly have the edge in the battle of the aces. The fact that both of Bumgarner's previous World Series starts can't be overlooked, either. He's also 2-0 on the road this postseason, with that shutout over the Pirates in the Wild Card Game.
There is an X factor I'm curious about, though. The Giants, who went a combined 8-1 in 2010 and 2012, had home field advantage in both series. They won both games in San Francisco each time. This year they're starting on the road. Will that make a difference? I think it might. Because going home tied 1-1 or down 0-2 is much different than going on the road up 2-0.
I also wonder who will DH for the Giants. Travis Ishikawa's not an outfielder. So, if it were up to me, Ishikawa would DH and Juan Perez would play left, even though Michael Morse seems like the obvious choice to DH. Speaking of DHs, I'm so happy for all of the Royals, but Billy Butler especially. He's been in Kansas City the longest. There's no chance Butler will play the field in San Francisco (it would make absolutely no sense to have him play first and take Hosmer out of the lineup, and that's the only possible position Butler could play). But the Royals only lose their No. 5 hitter in three of the seven games, and they get Butler back for Games 6 and 7. That could be important.
But if there's anything we've learned over the last month, it's that Kansas City isn't reliant on Billy Butler's bat. The Royals are a fun team to watch. Because they can win games in any number of ways. They hit the fewest home runs in the American League, but in the playoffs, they've used the long ball as a weapon. And it hasn't just been one guy. Hosmer, Moustakas, Gordon, Escobar, Cain, they've all gotten involved. Then there's the element of speed, which is something the Royals have that few other teams do. That's how they won the AL Wild Card Game, and they might be able to (literally) steal a run or two late in a close game. With that unhittable bullpen, those manufactured runs could be the difference.
When it comes to manufacturing runs, though, no team does it better than the Giants. This team is built for October, which is why they thrive this time of the year. San Francisco was one out away from losing Game 2 against Washington, put together three straight hits to tie the game, then won it on Brandon Belt's home run in the 18th. That was their last homer for six games (of which they won four) before finally breaking out for four, including Travis Ishikawa's pennant-clinching walk-off shot, in the NLCS Game 5 clincher. Plus, they've got Bumgarner, the best pitcher in the series, and that experience can't be discounted.
Assuming Bumgarner wins Game 1, it's imperative the Royals take Game 2. Because if they don't, the series won't be long, and the Giants will do something they didn't do in 2010 or 2012...clinch the championship on their home field. If we have a deep series that goes back to Kansas City, though, that favors the Royals. You know that crowd will be electric in Games 6 and 7, and having the last at-bat will prove vital for a team that simply refuses to lose. It would also give the Royals a chance to clinch all four rounds at home.
Common sense says to pick the Giants. But there's just something about this Royals team. They don't know what the hell they're doing, and it's fantastic to watch. There's only one way for this ride to end. Kansas City in seven.
Sunday, October 19, 2014
The Rest of Week 7
What is it with the ties in the NFL? We used to get one only once every couple years. Now we've had one three years in a row...and not just because of the new rules! As a result, we've got the Bengals and Panthers screwing up the playoff race in both conferences from now until the end of the season (although, a tie is what got the Eagles into the playoffs a couple years ago).
Thursday Night: New England (Win)
Vikings (2-4) at Bills (3-3): Buffalo-The Bills are a lot better than I originally thought they would be, last week notwithstanding. It's worth noting, though, that their three losses are to New England, San Diego and Houston, none of whom are exactly slouches. They're also 2-0 against the NFC North. The Vikings aren't the same caliber as the two NFC North teams they've already beaten (Detroit and Chicago)...on the road.
Dolphins (2-3) at Bears (3-3): Chicago-This is a tough one. I don't know what to make of the Bears week-to-week, and the Dolphins seem to be in every game before they end up losing. What's even weirder about Chicago is that they haven't won at Soldier Field yet. 0-2 at home, 3-1 on the road. I think that changes this week.
Saints (2-3) at Lions (4-2): Detroit-Another tough call. New Orleans is getting close to "must-win" time. They can't afford to get much more behind the 8-ball if they want to make the playoffs. Ordinarily, you'd think a game in Detroit would be an easy Saints win. But the Lions are probably the better team right now. In fact, they're tied for first in the NFC North. The Saints winning wouldn't be a surprise, but I'm taking Detroit.
Panthers (3-2-1) at Packers (4-2): Green Bay-Carolina's a confusing team. They're 3-0 against the NFC and 0-2-1 against the AFC North (and that should really be 0-3). And they looked downright bad in two of those three games. The Packers, meanwhile, are fine after those early-season predictions of doom when they were 1-2. Now they've won three straight and moved into a tie for first place. If this game were in Charlotte, I might feel differently. But at Lambeau, I like the Packers.
Bengals (3-1-1) at Colts (4-2): Indianapolis-It seems like it's been an awful long time since Cincinnati was the last undefeated team in football. Then they get smoked by the Patriots and end up with a tie in a game they should've won. Things don't get any easier this week against the Colts. Indy's won four straight after starting the season 0-2. Three of those wins were division games, but they also beat Baltimore at home. The Bengals are a mess right now. As a result, I'm going with the Colts.
Seahawks (3-2) at Rams (1-4): Seattle-The Seahawks finally lost a home game. To a very good Dallas team. And that 49ers-Rams game on Monday night was closer than the 31-17 score indicated. Unfortunately, though, it ended the same way Rams division games usually end. Seattle's going to bounce back fine.
Titans (2-4) at Redskins (1-5): Tennessee-Everyone's picking Washington in this game. I don't know why. Their only win was at home against Jacksonville, one of the few teams in the NFL that might actually be worse than the Redskins! Sure, the Titans barely beat Jacksonville last week, but they're still better than Washington. The Redskins simply aren't a good football team.
Browns (3-2) at Jaguars (0-6): Cleveland-I wasn't overly surprised by the Browns beating Pittsburgh last week, but the degree to which they beat them was certainly a shock. The Browns are definitely for real. And now they really get a chance to pad their record. Jacksonville, Oakland, Tampa Bay in the next three weeks. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Cleveland at 6-2 when they play Cincinnati in that Week 10 Thursday night game.
Falcons (2-4) at Ravens (4-2): Baltimore-Incredibly, after the tumultuous start to the season, the Ravens could in first place by the end of the day. They've certainly recovered from the Ray Rice scandal. And beating Atlanta at home shouldn't be an issue. I still think the Falcons are better than they've shown, but their third straight road game looks like a third straight loss before they head across the pond for a "home" game in London.
Chiefs (2-3) at Chargers (5-1): San Diego-There's some debate over who the best team in football is, but the Chargers are making a serious case that it might be them. And with the Eagles off and the Cowboys starting 20 minutes later, they could also become the first six-win team heading into that showdown Thursday night in Denver.
Giants (3-3) at Cowboys (5-1): Giants-The best team in football debate really became a much bigger topic of conversation after the Cowboys beat the Seahawks in Seattle last week. It was a phenomenal effort by a Dallas team that's now won five in a row, and absolutely belongs in that discussion. The Giants, meanwhile, got their butts kicked in Philadelphia on Sunday night. So why am I picking the Giants? Well, they've only once all-time at AT&T Stadium. They know how to play in Dallas better than anybody. I understand that as a straight-up pick this might be a loss, but they're definitely going to cover the spread at the very least.
Cardinals (4-1) at Raiders (0-5): Arizona-How come no one's talking about Arizona as one of the best teams? All you hear about the NFC West is San Francisco this and Seattle that. Meanwhile, the Cardinals are in first place after winning 10 games last year. This week they play the Raiders. I really wish the Raiders played the Jaguars this year. Then we'd actually know which one is worse.
49ers (4-2) at Broncos (4-1): Denver-Fun fact: three teams in the NFC have only one loss this season. Dallas and Philadelphia lost to San Francisco. Arizona's loss was to Denver. So, what I'm saying here is that we've got two pretty good teams facing each other on Sunday night. There's, of course, another storyline that we'll be keeping an eye on. Peyton Manning needs just three touchdown passes to break Brett Favre's all-time record. If he doesn't get it this week (which seems unlikely), he's got another chance to do it on national TV Thursday night against the Chargers. That'll be for first place. Because they'll both only have one loss coming into it.
Texans (3-3) at Steelers (3-3): Pittsburgh-It sounds weird to say it, but, despite being 3-3, Pittsburgh's currently in last place. The AFC North has had three good teams for the last couple years. Now there are four. Which means winning non-division games is paramount if Pittsburgh wants to have any shot at the playoffs. Houston is also 3-3, but in the much weaker AFC South, that's OK. Even after losing that first place showdown in Indianapolis last week, the Texans are just one game behind the Colts. Basically, what I'm saying here is that Pittsburgh needs to win this game more.
BYE: Philadelphia (5-1), Tampa Bay (1-5)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-3-1
Season: 62-29-1
Thursday Night: New England (Win)
Vikings (2-4) at Bills (3-3): Buffalo-The Bills are a lot better than I originally thought they would be, last week notwithstanding. It's worth noting, though, that their three losses are to New England, San Diego and Houston, none of whom are exactly slouches. They're also 2-0 against the NFC North. The Vikings aren't the same caliber as the two NFC North teams they've already beaten (Detroit and Chicago)...on the road.
Dolphins (2-3) at Bears (3-3): Chicago-This is a tough one. I don't know what to make of the Bears week-to-week, and the Dolphins seem to be in every game before they end up losing. What's even weirder about Chicago is that they haven't won at Soldier Field yet. 0-2 at home, 3-1 on the road. I think that changes this week.
Saints (2-3) at Lions (4-2): Detroit-Another tough call. New Orleans is getting close to "must-win" time. They can't afford to get much more behind the 8-ball if they want to make the playoffs. Ordinarily, you'd think a game in Detroit would be an easy Saints win. But the Lions are probably the better team right now. In fact, they're tied for first in the NFC North. The Saints winning wouldn't be a surprise, but I'm taking Detroit.
Panthers (3-2-1) at Packers (4-2): Green Bay-Carolina's a confusing team. They're 3-0 against the NFC and 0-2-1 against the AFC North (and that should really be 0-3). And they looked downright bad in two of those three games. The Packers, meanwhile, are fine after those early-season predictions of doom when they were 1-2. Now they've won three straight and moved into a tie for first place. If this game were in Charlotte, I might feel differently. But at Lambeau, I like the Packers.
Bengals (3-1-1) at Colts (4-2): Indianapolis-It seems like it's been an awful long time since Cincinnati was the last undefeated team in football. Then they get smoked by the Patriots and end up with a tie in a game they should've won. Things don't get any easier this week against the Colts. Indy's won four straight after starting the season 0-2. Three of those wins were division games, but they also beat Baltimore at home. The Bengals are a mess right now. As a result, I'm going with the Colts.
Seahawks (3-2) at Rams (1-4): Seattle-The Seahawks finally lost a home game. To a very good Dallas team. And that 49ers-Rams game on Monday night was closer than the 31-17 score indicated. Unfortunately, though, it ended the same way Rams division games usually end. Seattle's going to bounce back fine.
Titans (2-4) at Redskins (1-5): Tennessee-Everyone's picking Washington in this game. I don't know why. Their only win was at home against Jacksonville, one of the few teams in the NFL that might actually be worse than the Redskins! Sure, the Titans barely beat Jacksonville last week, but they're still better than Washington. The Redskins simply aren't a good football team.
Browns (3-2) at Jaguars (0-6): Cleveland-I wasn't overly surprised by the Browns beating Pittsburgh last week, but the degree to which they beat them was certainly a shock. The Browns are definitely for real. And now they really get a chance to pad their record. Jacksonville, Oakland, Tampa Bay in the next three weeks. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see Cleveland at 6-2 when they play Cincinnati in that Week 10 Thursday night game.
Falcons (2-4) at Ravens (4-2): Baltimore-Incredibly, after the tumultuous start to the season, the Ravens could in first place by the end of the day. They've certainly recovered from the Ray Rice scandal. And beating Atlanta at home shouldn't be an issue. I still think the Falcons are better than they've shown, but their third straight road game looks like a third straight loss before they head across the pond for a "home" game in London.
Chiefs (2-3) at Chargers (5-1): San Diego-There's some debate over who the best team in football is, but the Chargers are making a serious case that it might be them. And with the Eagles off and the Cowboys starting 20 minutes later, they could also become the first six-win team heading into that showdown Thursday night in Denver.
Giants (3-3) at Cowboys (5-1): Giants-The best team in football debate really became a much bigger topic of conversation after the Cowboys beat the Seahawks in Seattle last week. It was a phenomenal effort by a Dallas team that's now won five in a row, and absolutely belongs in that discussion. The Giants, meanwhile, got their butts kicked in Philadelphia on Sunday night. So why am I picking the Giants? Well, they've only once all-time at AT&T Stadium. They know how to play in Dallas better than anybody. I understand that as a straight-up pick this might be a loss, but they're definitely going to cover the spread at the very least.
Cardinals (4-1) at Raiders (0-5): Arizona-How come no one's talking about Arizona as one of the best teams? All you hear about the NFC West is San Francisco this and Seattle that. Meanwhile, the Cardinals are in first place after winning 10 games last year. This week they play the Raiders. I really wish the Raiders played the Jaguars this year. Then we'd actually know which one is worse.
49ers (4-2) at Broncos (4-1): Denver-Fun fact: three teams in the NFC have only one loss this season. Dallas and Philadelphia lost to San Francisco. Arizona's loss was to Denver. So, what I'm saying here is that we've got two pretty good teams facing each other on Sunday night. There's, of course, another storyline that we'll be keeping an eye on. Peyton Manning needs just three touchdown passes to break Brett Favre's all-time record. If he doesn't get it this week (which seems unlikely), he's got another chance to do it on national TV Thursday night against the Chargers. That'll be for first place. Because they'll both only have one loss coming into it.
Texans (3-3) at Steelers (3-3): Pittsburgh-It sounds weird to say it, but, despite being 3-3, Pittsburgh's currently in last place. The AFC North has had three good teams for the last couple years. Now there are four. Which means winning non-division games is paramount if Pittsburgh wants to have any shot at the playoffs. Houston is also 3-3, but in the much weaker AFC South, that's OK. Even after losing that first place showdown in Indianapolis last week, the Texans are just one game behind the Colts. Basically, what I'm saying here is that Pittsburgh needs to win this game more.
BYE: Philadelphia (5-1), Tampa Bay (1-5)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-3-1
Season: 62-29-1
Saturday, October 18, 2014
The Olympics Nobody Wants
It might not be quite that dramatic, but that's certainly the way it seems. Now that Oslo, the presumed favorite, has pulled out, the race for the 2022 Winter Olympics is down to two cities--Almaty, Kazakhstan and Beijing. Neither choice is ultra-desirable, but they're all the IOC is left with after seeing city after city fall by the wayside. At least there's still going to be a vote, because neither of the remaining candidates is going anywhere.
The IOC is clearly unhappy about these developments, and they've made that stance known. The reason Oslo withdrew its bid was because it couldn't get the necessary governmental support, an IOC requirement. Although, in the IOC's opinion, that problem could've been avoided if their had been better communication between the bid organizers and the government, which would've resulted in a clearer understanding of the actual costs and how that money would've been spent.
Governments, especially in Western nations, are scared off by the cost associated with hosting an Olympics. They look at that $51 billion price tag for the Sochi Games and decide "Thanks, but No Thanks" without considering why the Russians spent that much. In Sochi, they built a winter sports resort from scratch. That costs money. And that's what accounted for a majority of that $51 billion. Oslo's already got most of that stuff in place. As a result, their projected budget was only $5 billion, which was still too much for the government.
As a terrific article I read about the Oslo situation noted, the Norwegian media was also against hosting the Olympics, which turned the public against the bid, which in turn soured the government on the idea. Having read some of those articles myself, I agree with that point completely. The Norwegian media took things out of IOC manuals that were designed as suggestions for all potential Olympic hosts and ran with them as "demands" that made the IOC look like privileged prima donnas.
One example noted in the article was that the IOC members asked for five-star hotels and 24-hour room service. The fact that the IOC would pay for this themselves was conveniently ignored. They also jumped on the IOC because of the suggestion that there should be a cocktail party with IOC members and the host country's head of state following the Opening Ceremony, as if that was an unreasonable idea. (If I was an Olympic organizer, that's something I'd want to do regardless.)
There's no question that the 2022 bid "race" has been a black mark for the IOC. Before Norway, bids from Switzerland, Germany, Sweden and Poland were either considered and not submitted or submitted and withdrawn for mostly the same reasons. (The Ukranian city of Lviv also withdrew as a candidate, but the political situation between Ukraine and Russia also played a big part in that.) As a result, the Olympics will be in Asia for the third consecutive time and, outside of Rio 2016, won't have been further West than Sochi for an entire decade. It's also guaranteed that there will be at least a 12-year gap between Olympics in Western Europe (and a 10-year gap between Olympics in Europe period), and that's assuming the 2024 Games go to a European city, which is by no means a guarantee.
I haven't even mentioned the World Cup problem yet, either. Since FIFA was stupid enough to give the World Cup to Qatar, a country where it's too hot to play soccer in the summer, they're going to have to move the World Cup. Rather than playing it in November/December, some soccer people have said that the World Cup should be played in February instead. So, even though FIFA's the ones that screwed up, the Winter Olympics, which are always in February, should be held at a different time? That makes a lot of sense.
Anyway, IOC President Thomas Bach knows the IOC looks bad, and reforming the bidding process is one of the big things that will be discussed as a part of his "Olympic Agenda 2020." Something needs to change. Because nobody wants to host the Olympics right now. At least not any of the Western democracies that traditionally do the best. (The ironic part here is that the IOC doesn't want the U.S. right now, which is why there was no American bid for 2018, 2020 or 2022.) And it's difficult to spread the Olympic Movement if the Games end up going back to the same country over and over again because they're the only ones willing to host them.
To his credit, Bach has remained steadfast. Even though we're down to just two candidates, he's not reopening the bid process. For one, that would be unfair to Almaty and Beijing. For another, who's to say any new candidates would suddenly emerge. So, for better or worse and whether we like it or not, the 2022 Winter Olympics will be held in either Almaty or Beijing.
Ultimately, I think the Almaty bid is much stronger, and a Games in Almaty makes much more sense (there are no mountains in Beijing). I also think the IOC is highly unlikely to go to Korea, then Japan, then China for three straight Olympics. Lastly, giving the same city two Olympics 14 years apart, let alone one Summer Games and one Winter Games, isn't exactly spreading the Olympic Movement.
Central Asia, however, is an untapped market. The Olympics have never been in Kazakhstan (or any of the former Soviet republics other than Russia). It might not be the most desirable bid, but it's definitely the lesser of two evils. And let's not forget, Rio was rated fourth of the four finalists for 2016, but ended up winning the Games. We don't yet know how the Rio Games will go, but I think we can all agree it was good for the Olympic Movement to have its first South American host.
Almaty 2022 can do the same thing for Central Asia. And if those Games are successful, nobody will be talking about all the cities that dropped out during the bidding process. Just like no one cares that LA was the only bidder for the 1984 Summer Games. That one worked out OK, and I have a feeling this will to. Even if it doesn't seem like that right now.
The IOC is clearly unhappy about these developments, and they've made that stance known. The reason Oslo withdrew its bid was because it couldn't get the necessary governmental support, an IOC requirement. Although, in the IOC's opinion, that problem could've been avoided if their had been better communication between the bid organizers and the government, which would've resulted in a clearer understanding of the actual costs and how that money would've been spent.
Governments, especially in Western nations, are scared off by the cost associated with hosting an Olympics. They look at that $51 billion price tag for the Sochi Games and decide "Thanks, but No Thanks" without considering why the Russians spent that much. In Sochi, they built a winter sports resort from scratch. That costs money. And that's what accounted for a majority of that $51 billion. Oslo's already got most of that stuff in place. As a result, their projected budget was only $5 billion, which was still too much for the government.
As a terrific article I read about the Oslo situation noted, the Norwegian media was also against hosting the Olympics, which turned the public against the bid, which in turn soured the government on the idea. Having read some of those articles myself, I agree with that point completely. The Norwegian media took things out of IOC manuals that were designed as suggestions for all potential Olympic hosts and ran with them as "demands" that made the IOC look like privileged prima donnas.
One example noted in the article was that the IOC members asked for five-star hotels and 24-hour room service. The fact that the IOC would pay for this themselves was conveniently ignored. They also jumped on the IOC because of the suggestion that there should be a cocktail party with IOC members and the host country's head of state following the Opening Ceremony, as if that was an unreasonable idea. (If I was an Olympic organizer, that's something I'd want to do regardless.)
There's no question that the 2022 bid "race" has been a black mark for the IOC. Before Norway, bids from Switzerland, Germany, Sweden and Poland were either considered and not submitted or submitted and withdrawn for mostly the same reasons. (The Ukranian city of Lviv also withdrew as a candidate, but the political situation between Ukraine and Russia also played a big part in that.) As a result, the Olympics will be in Asia for the third consecutive time and, outside of Rio 2016, won't have been further West than Sochi for an entire decade. It's also guaranteed that there will be at least a 12-year gap between Olympics in Western Europe (and a 10-year gap between Olympics in Europe period), and that's assuming the 2024 Games go to a European city, which is by no means a guarantee.
I haven't even mentioned the World Cup problem yet, either. Since FIFA was stupid enough to give the World Cup to Qatar, a country where it's too hot to play soccer in the summer, they're going to have to move the World Cup. Rather than playing it in November/December, some soccer people have said that the World Cup should be played in February instead. So, even though FIFA's the ones that screwed up, the Winter Olympics, which are always in February, should be held at a different time? That makes a lot of sense.
Anyway, IOC President Thomas Bach knows the IOC looks bad, and reforming the bidding process is one of the big things that will be discussed as a part of his "Olympic Agenda 2020." Something needs to change. Because nobody wants to host the Olympics right now. At least not any of the Western democracies that traditionally do the best. (The ironic part here is that the IOC doesn't want the U.S. right now, which is why there was no American bid for 2018, 2020 or 2022.) And it's difficult to spread the Olympic Movement if the Games end up going back to the same country over and over again because they're the only ones willing to host them.
To his credit, Bach has remained steadfast. Even though we're down to just two candidates, he's not reopening the bid process. For one, that would be unfair to Almaty and Beijing. For another, who's to say any new candidates would suddenly emerge. So, for better or worse and whether we like it or not, the 2022 Winter Olympics will be held in either Almaty or Beijing.
Ultimately, I think the Almaty bid is much stronger, and a Games in Almaty makes much more sense (there are no mountains in Beijing). I also think the IOC is highly unlikely to go to Korea, then Japan, then China for three straight Olympics. Lastly, giving the same city two Olympics 14 years apart, let alone one Summer Games and one Winter Games, isn't exactly spreading the Olympic Movement.
Central Asia, however, is an untapped market. The Olympics have never been in Kazakhstan (or any of the former Soviet republics other than Russia). It might not be the most desirable bid, but it's definitely the lesser of two evils. And let's not forget, Rio was rated fourth of the four finalists for 2016, but ended up winning the Games. We don't yet know how the Rio Games will go, but I think we can all agree it was good for the Olympic Movement to have its first South American host.
Almaty 2022 can do the same thing for Central Asia. And if those Games are successful, nobody will be talking about all the cities that dropped out during the bidding process. Just like no one cares that LA was the only bidder for the 1984 Summer Games. That one worked out OK, and I have a feeling this will to. Even if it doesn't seem like that right now.
Wednesday, October 15, 2014
Yankee Moves I'd Like to See
Now that Brian Cashman has been re-upped as general manager and hitting coach Kevin Long has been fired (which we all knew was going to happen), the Yankees can start planning their 2014-15 offseason moves. And A-Rod returning doesn't count as an offseason move. That already happened. It's not like they're going out of their way to get him. For all intents and purposes, he's more like a guy who missed the 2014 season with an injury.
However, I do disagree with the way the Yankees plan on using A-Rod next season. He's going to be 40 years old and has played a total of 50 games in the past two seasons combined! I think the year off was a good thing to a certain extent in that it let him fully recover from his hip injury. The chances of him staying healthy are small to begin with, but they're a little better without him trying to play on a hip that isn't fully healed.
It's silly to think A-Rod will be able to be an everyday third baseman, though. And the suggestion of moving him to shortstop, a position he hasn't played regularly in 10 years, is simply ridiculous. (This coming from some of the same people who didn't want a 40-year-old Derek Jeter playing shortstop.) Cashman and Joe Girardi seem to understand this to an extent, which I think is why they've told him that he's going to learn first base during Spring Training. I'm not completely sold on that idea, either, though. Because I think the solution is much simpler.
If I were running the Yankees and had a say in personnel decisions, there are two free agents I'd prioritize before anyone else. Brandon McCarthy and Chase Headley. More on McCarthy in a second, but I think re-signing Headley is a no-brainer. He provided as much of a spark as he could after he was acquired at midseason, and I'd love to see what Headley can do with a full season in the Bronx. And defensively, he's a significant upgrade over Rodriguez at third. Headley also proved capable at first base, as well, so he can be Teixeira's backup instead of sticking A-Rod over there where he's never played before. Headley's value is increased by the fact that you can't rely on A-Rod, Teixeira and Carlos Beltran all staying healthy. Having Headley on the roster provides some flexibility if one of the presumed 3-4-5 hitters is out of the lineup.
My ideal alignment has Headley at third and A-Rod DHing. If you want to DH Teixeira, you can always put Headley at first and A-Rod at third. It seems too obvious.
Another move I'd make would be to lock up Ichiro for another year as an insurance policy for Beltran. Ichiro will probably look for somewhere he can play everyday, and if he finds it, I'd fully expect him to leave the Bronx. But he seems happy with the Yankees and OK with his role. If he's willing to come back in that same fourth outfielder role he was supposed to fill this season, I don't think that would be a bad move. Yes, it's another 40-year-old (backing up the 38-year-old Beltran), but Ichiro can still be a productive hitter, as he proved last season, and there's no question about his defense.
Martin Prado is already under contract for next season, and the argument is probably that Prado can technically be the extra outfielder. But he's probably going to be penciled in as the everyday second baseman (and possible No. 2 hitter), so you can't really rely on him being the extra outfielder. We're not talking about Ben Zobrist here. There isn't really another option at second base besides Prado (assuming Stephen Drew is shipped back to wherever he came from).
With Prado at second, Headley at third and A-Rod at DH, that's eight of the nine positions covered. The only one that's left is shortstop. Who's going to get those incredibly large shoes to fill? It's probably safe to say it won't be Stephen Drew. And it certainly won't be Brendan Ryan, who'll be back as the backup utility infielder. J.J. Hardy's not an option, either, after re-signing with Baltimore. So who does that leave? If the Yankees go the free agent route, it could be somebody like Asdrubal Cabrera.
I'd prefer a trade, though. And I know exactly who I want. Troy Tulowitzki. Tulo wants out of Colorado, and he's exactly the type that looks like he'll thrive in New York. His injury history is probably a concern for some (and rightfully so), but he's arguably the best shortstop in the game when healthy. And he's the perfect guy to fill that unenviable role of replacing Jeter. The Yankees have about six Major League-ready catchers in the Minors. Brian McCann isn't going anywhere, so I'd trade one of the catchers (probably John Ryan Murphy) and a young starter (Shane Greene?), as well as a draft pick or two to the Rockies for Tulowitzki.
Back to Brandon McCarthy now. The Yankees learned this year that you can never have too much starting pitching. After the entire rotation (minus Kuroda) got hurt, then the guys who replaced them got hurt, McCarthy came over for Arizona and was arguably the ace of the staff in August and September. With Kuroda likely retiring and Nova not returning from Tommy John surgery until the All-Star Break at the earliest, McCarthy fits right into the No. 3 spot in that rotation behind Sabathia and Tanaka (figuring Pineda and Phelps/Greene/Nova rounding out the rotation). He's earned the opportunity to come back, and I think the Yankees will make him an offer to return. They know how valuable he was to their pitching staff, and it's worth seeing if he can continue that success in 2015.
Then there's the elephant in the room. What to do about David Robertson? He seamlessly moved into the closer role while Dellin Betances emerged as a lights-out setup man. Some will argue that the Yankees can afford to let Robertson walk and simply slide Betances over to closer. If only it were that simple. Robertson's going to get his money somewhere. There's no question about that.
But my question is this: Why shouldn't he get it from the Yankees? Why rush Betances into the closer role before you need to? Betances is still locked up for another couple years under his rookie contract, so the Yankees don't have to worry about losing him for a while. And if Robertson were to leave, they'd have to shell out money on a reliever anyway, so why not just give it to him? I'd give Robertson $45 million over three years, then make Betances the closer after that.
Who's to say any of my suggestions are good ones? You probably have some ideas of your own. (Sorry, having A-Rod not come back isn't an option. And, frankly, I'd love for his bat to join the middle of that anemic lineup.) I honestly don't really care what they end up doing. As long as I'm watching the Yankees at this time next year, it makes absolutely no difference to me who's on the team.
However, I do disagree with the way the Yankees plan on using A-Rod next season. He's going to be 40 years old and has played a total of 50 games in the past two seasons combined! I think the year off was a good thing to a certain extent in that it let him fully recover from his hip injury. The chances of him staying healthy are small to begin with, but they're a little better without him trying to play on a hip that isn't fully healed.
It's silly to think A-Rod will be able to be an everyday third baseman, though. And the suggestion of moving him to shortstop, a position he hasn't played regularly in 10 years, is simply ridiculous. (This coming from some of the same people who didn't want a 40-year-old Derek Jeter playing shortstop.) Cashman and Joe Girardi seem to understand this to an extent, which I think is why they've told him that he's going to learn first base during Spring Training. I'm not completely sold on that idea, either, though. Because I think the solution is much simpler.
If I were running the Yankees and had a say in personnel decisions, there are two free agents I'd prioritize before anyone else. Brandon McCarthy and Chase Headley. More on McCarthy in a second, but I think re-signing Headley is a no-brainer. He provided as much of a spark as he could after he was acquired at midseason, and I'd love to see what Headley can do with a full season in the Bronx. And defensively, he's a significant upgrade over Rodriguez at third. Headley also proved capable at first base, as well, so he can be Teixeira's backup instead of sticking A-Rod over there where he's never played before. Headley's value is increased by the fact that you can't rely on A-Rod, Teixeira and Carlos Beltran all staying healthy. Having Headley on the roster provides some flexibility if one of the presumed 3-4-5 hitters is out of the lineup.
My ideal alignment has Headley at third and A-Rod DHing. If you want to DH Teixeira, you can always put Headley at first and A-Rod at third. It seems too obvious.
Another move I'd make would be to lock up Ichiro for another year as an insurance policy for Beltran. Ichiro will probably look for somewhere he can play everyday, and if he finds it, I'd fully expect him to leave the Bronx. But he seems happy with the Yankees and OK with his role. If he's willing to come back in that same fourth outfielder role he was supposed to fill this season, I don't think that would be a bad move. Yes, it's another 40-year-old (backing up the 38-year-old Beltran), but Ichiro can still be a productive hitter, as he proved last season, and there's no question about his defense.
Martin Prado is already under contract for next season, and the argument is probably that Prado can technically be the extra outfielder. But he's probably going to be penciled in as the everyday second baseman (and possible No. 2 hitter), so you can't really rely on him being the extra outfielder. We're not talking about Ben Zobrist here. There isn't really another option at second base besides Prado (assuming Stephen Drew is shipped back to wherever he came from).
With Prado at second, Headley at third and A-Rod at DH, that's eight of the nine positions covered. The only one that's left is shortstop. Who's going to get those incredibly large shoes to fill? It's probably safe to say it won't be Stephen Drew. And it certainly won't be Brendan Ryan, who'll be back as the backup utility infielder. J.J. Hardy's not an option, either, after re-signing with Baltimore. So who does that leave? If the Yankees go the free agent route, it could be somebody like Asdrubal Cabrera.
I'd prefer a trade, though. And I know exactly who I want. Troy Tulowitzki. Tulo wants out of Colorado, and he's exactly the type that looks like he'll thrive in New York. His injury history is probably a concern for some (and rightfully so), but he's arguably the best shortstop in the game when healthy. And he's the perfect guy to fill that unenviable role of replacing Jeter. The Yankees have about six Major League-ready catchers in the Minors. Brian McCann isn't going anywhere, so I'd trade one of the catchers (probably John Ryan Murphy) and a young starter (Shane Greene?), as well as a draft pick or two to the Rockies for Tulowitzki.
Back to Brandon McCarthy now. The Yankees learned this year that you can never have too much starting pitching. After the entire rotation (minus Kuroda) got hurt, then the guys who replaced them got hurt, McCarthy came over for Arizona and was arguably the ace of the staff in August and September. With Kuroda likely retiring and Nova not returning from Tommy John surgery until the All-Star Break at the earliest, McCarthy fits right into the No. 3 spot in that rotation behind Sabathia and Tanaka (figuring Pineda and Phelps/Greene/Nova rounding out the rotation). He's earned the opportunity to come back, and I think the Yankees will make him an offer to return. They know how valuable he was to their pitching staff, and it's worth seeing if he can continue that success in 2015.
Then there's the elephant in the room. What to do about David Robertson? He seamlessly moved into the closer role while Dellin Betances emerged as a lights-out setup man. Some will argue that the Yankees can afford to let Robertson walk and simply slide Betances over to closer. If only it were that simple. Robertson's going to get his money somewhere. There's no question about that.
But my question is this: Why shouldn't he get it from the Yankees? Why rush Betances into the closer role before you need to? Betances is still locked up for another couple years under his rookie contract, so the Yankees don't have to worry about losing him for a while. And if Robertson were to leave, they'd have to shell out money on a reliever anyway, so why not just give it to him? I'd give Robertson $45 million over three years, then make Betances the closer after that.
Who's to say any of my suggestions are good ones? You probably have some ideas of your own. (Sorry, having A-Rod not come back isn't an option. And, frankly, I'd love for his bat to join the middle of that anemic lineup.) I honestly don't really care what they end up doing. As long as I'm watching the Yankees at this time next year, it makes absolutely no difference to me who's on the team.
Sunday, October 12, 2014
The Rest of Week 6
How do you go 13-2 with your picks and still end up disappointed in your week? When one of the two losses was the one you were so sure of you made it your survival pick. And now, thanks to the Lions, I already have two of my three strikes in my survival league...and it's only Week 6. Fortunately the Broncos are playing the Jets this week.
Thursday Night: Houston (Loss)
Patriots (3-2) at Bills (3-2): New England-The battle for first place in the AFC East. The Bills have been one of the biggest surprises in the NFL this season, and this is their first game under new owner Terry Peluga. After the sale was approved and official, the Pelgua family sent an e-mail to Bills fans reassuring them that the team was staying where they belong. As one of those fans, that's a relief. Because of that, I can actually see the Bills making this a game. But ultimately, I think New England will take over sole possession of first place for the first time this season.
Panthers (3-2) at Bengals (3-1): Cincinnati-This is another compelling matchup between teams that are in first place in their division (a total of four this week including Houston-Indianapolis). Cincinnati, of course, was the last undefeated team until falling to New England last Sunday night. Although, as former Bengal Cris Collinsworth pointed out, they do well in games that aren't in primetime, but can never seem to win under the bright lights. Fortunately for them, this game isn't in primetime. The Panthers, meanwhile, rebounded after dropping two straight by beating Chicago at home. Those two losses were to Pittsburgh and Baltimore. Unfortunately, another game against the AFC North will yield a similar result. The game's not in primetime. Cincinnati wins.
Steelers (3-2) at Browns (2-2): Pittsburgh-Is it just me, or is it weird that the Steelers and Browns are finishing the season series in Week 6? How many teams haven't played a single division game yet? Anyway, the Steelers barely won when they played in Pittsburgh in Week 1. That's when we first got the indication of how good Cleveland was going to be this year. And the Browns have looked more impressive each week, as evidence by last week's 22-point comeback in Nashville. Sure looks like the Browns might be able to steal one from their archrivals. I'm still picking Pittsburgh, though.
Jaguars (0-5) at Titans (1-4): Tennessee-These two are still in the same division, which means we're still subjected to this game twice a year. The Titans thought they lucked out when they drew Cleveland, Jacksonville, Washington in consecutive weeks, then they go and blow that lead against the Browns last week. The Jaguars aren't the Browns. And the Titans are an actual NFL team.
Packers (3-2) at Dolphins (2-2): Green Bay-Green Bay certainly seems to be headed back in the right direction after back-to-back division wins, including that Thursday night rout of the Vikings. Miami's last game was in London, where they beat the Raiders for their first victory since Opening Day. I'm still not sure whether or not I think the Dolphins or good or whether they have a chance in the AFC East. I do expect to see the Packers keep their roll going and come out of Miami with a win.
Lions (3-2) at Vikings (2-3): Detroit-Detroit is tied with Green Bay for first place, but is technically the NFC North leader because they beat the Packers. The Vikings did not beat the Packers. They did the exact opposite of beating the Packers. Not just that, they got their butts kicked. Minnesota's had plenty of time to integrate Christian Ponder into the offense, which might be the only good news I have for them. Because the Lions are the better team.
Broncos (3-1) at Jets (1-4): Denver-My Royals/Broncos fan friend was asking around if anyone wanted to go to this game with him. Then I reminded him that the last time he went to a Broncos game at MetLife Stadium, it didn't end that well. I'm not sure whether or not he ended up deciding to go, but either way this game will be a different story. The Jets aren't the Seahawks. Not even close.
Ravens (3-2) at Buccaneers (1-4): Baltimore-The Bucs and Jets have the same record, but they're very different 1-4s. Take last week. The Bucs could've and probably should've beaten the Saints, but ended up losing in overtime. The record might not show it, but Lovie Smith's got this team going in the right direction. As for Baltimore, they've been an up-and-down team all season. After losing in Indianapolis last week, I think we're in store for a good one from the Ravens this week. Which will give the fans in Baltimore something good to think about, even though it probably won't do much to take the sting out of the first two games of the ALCS.
Chargers (4-1) at Raiders (0-4): San Diego-It's good to be the San Diego Chargers right now. What's the only way for life to get better after playing the Jets at home? Oh, that's right, a trip to Oakland! The Chargers owe the NFL's schedule-maker dinner. Phillip Rivers doesn't even need to play in the second half and they'll still extend the NFL's best record to 5-1.
Bears (2-3) at Falcons (2-3): Chicago-It sounds a little weird this early in the season, but I really think this is a "must" game for both of these teams. Especially the Falcons, who don't play another game in Atlanta until November 23. They're both only a game out of first, but it really seems like the season could start slipping away if they fall to 2-4. That's a bigger concern for the Bears, who have to keep pace with the Lions and Packers if they have any hope of making the playoffs. Their only two wins have come in primetime road games. I think that changes this week.
Redskins (1-4) at Cardinals (3-1): Arizona-Jay Gruden called a team meeting because he was upset some of the Redskins were laughing on the sidelines after losing to the Seahawks on Monday night. I was actually surprised Washington kept it that close with Seattle. A trip to Arizona won't be any easier. For the Redskins' players sake, they'd better not be laughing on the flight back to DC.
Cowboys (4-1) at Seahawks (3-1): Seattle-This is clearly the best game in the Sunday afternoon window. Dallas has won four in a row since that Week 1 loss to San Francisco, and it really looks like this might be that one year in every five that the Cowboys are legitimately good and end up in the playoffs. A good showing in Seattle could further that belief. It's too hard for visitors to win in Qwest Field, so the Seahawks are still the safe bet. If the Seahawks win, Dallas will be rooting hard for the Giants on Sunday night. If the Cowboys win, Seattle will be rooting hard for an Arizona and/or San Francisco loss. So, basically, this game could end up being very important down the road.
Giants (3-2) at Eagles (4-1): Philadelphia-The flames of this fire have certainly be fanned this week. First that Giants fan showed up in the Super Bowls 0 Eagles jersey (which technically isn't a knock, since it's true). Then Bradley Cooper starts talking all sorts of crap about the Giants (Hey Bradley, you're only the third-biggest star who was in that movie, and Jennifer Lawrence is the one that won the Oscar!). And it's New York vs. Philadelphia. You know NBC is loving all of this. Something's gotta give. The Eagles have the best record in football, but it's the Giants who've won three straight. If they make it four, it could a three-way tie for first depending on how the Cowboys-Seahawks game goes. I think the Giants and Eagles are probably going to split this year. But I think it's the Eagles that win the first matchup this week.
49ers (3-2) at Rams (1-3): San Francisco-The Rams have given the 49ers fits in recent years. I think it was two years ago when they had the tie, then St. Louis won the second game. Last year, the 49ers finally got the better of the Rams, winning in St. Louis on either a Monday or Thursday night. Well, this year, they meet on a Monday night in St. Louis again. And just like the Monday night game on the other side of the state two weeks ago, this one falls in the midst of a playoff run by the home baseball team. This one's a little different in that it's after the baseball games, and that the Cardinals and Rams are both playing San Francisco teams. It's safe to say St. Louis fans will be sick of San Francisco by the end of the weekend. Because the 49ers are going to do to the Rams what I hope the Giants do to the Cardinals three more times.
BYE: Kansas City (2-3), New Orleans (2-3)
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 13-2
Season: 50-27
Thursday Night: Houston (Loss)
Patriots (3-2) at Bills (3-2): New England-The battle for first place in the AFC East. The Bills have been one of the biggest surprises in the NFL this season, and this is their first game under new owner Terry Peluga. After the sale was approved and official, the Pelgua family sent an e-mail to Bills fans reassuring them that the team was staying where they belong. As one of those fans, that's a relief. Because of that, I can actually see the Bills making this a game. But ultimately, I think New England will take over sole possession of first place for the first time this season.
Panthers (3-2) at Bengals (3-1): Cincinnati-This is another compelling matchup between teams that are in first place in their division (a total of four this week including Houston-Indianapolis). Cincinnati, of course, was the last undefeated team until falling to New England last Sunday night. Although, as former Bengal Cris Collinsworth pointed out, they do well in games that aren't in primetime, but can never seem to win under the bright lights. Fortunately for them, this game isn't in primetime. The Panthers, meanwhile, rebounded after dropping two straight by beating Chicago at home. Those two losses were to Pittsburgh and Baltimore. Unfortunately, another game against the AFC North will yield a similar result. The game's not in primetime. Cincinnati wins.
Steelers (3-2) at Browns (2-2): Pittsburgh-Is it just me, or is it weird that the Steelers and Browns are finishing the season series in Week 6? How many teams haven't played a single division game yet? Anyway, the Steelers barely won when they played in Pittsburgh in Week 1. That's when we first got the indication of how good Cleveland was going to be this year. And the Browns have looked more impressive each week, as evidence by last week's 22-point comeback in Nashville. Sure looks like the Browns might be able to steal one from their archrivals. I'm still picking Pittsburgh, though.
Jaguars (0-5) at Titans (1-4): Tennessee-These two are still in the same division, which means we're still subjected to this game twice a year. The Titans thought they lucked out when they drew Cleveland, Jacksonville, Washington in consecutive weeks, then they go and blow that lead against the Browns last week. The Jaguars aren't the Browns. And the Titans are an actual NFL team.
Packers (3-2) at Dolphins (2-2): Green Bay-Green Bay certainly seems to be headed back in the right direction after back-to-back division wins, including that Thursday night rout of the Vikings. Miami's last game was in London, where they beat the Raiders for their first victory since Opening Day. I'm still not sure whether or not I think the Dolphins or good or whether they have a chance in the AFC East. I do expect to see the Packers keep their roll going and come out of Miami with a win.
Lions (3-2) at Vikings (2-3): Detroit-Detroit is tied with Green Bay for first place, but is technically the NFC North leader because they beat the Packers. The Vikings did not beat the Packers. They did the exact opposite of beating the Packers. Not just that, they got their butts kicked. Minnesota's had plenty of time to integrate Christian Ponder into the offense, which might be the only good news I have for them. Because the Lions are the better team.
Broncos (3-1) at Jets (1-4): Denver-My Royals/Broncos fan friend was asking around if anyone wanted to go to this game with him. Then I reminded him that the last time he went to a Broncos game at MetLife Stadium, it didn't end that well. I'm not sure whether or not he ended up deciding to go, but either way this game will be a different story. The Jets aren't the Seahawks. Not even close.
Ravens (3-2) at Buccaneers (1-4): Baltimore-The Bucs and Jets have the same record, but they're very different 1-4s. Take last week. The Bucs could've and probably should've beaten the Saints, but ended up losing in overtime. The record might not show it, but Lovie Smith's got this team going in the right direction. As for Baltimore, they've been an up-and-down team all season. After losing in Indianapolis last week, I think we're in store for a good one from the Ravens this week. Which will give the fans in Baltimore something good to think about, even though it probably won't do much to take the sting out of the first two games of the ALCS.
Chargers (4-1) at Raiders (0-4): San Diego-It's good to be the San Diego Chargers right now. What's the only way for life to get better after playing the Jets at home? Oh, that's right, a trip to Oakland! The Chargers owe the NFL's schedule-maker dinner. Phillip Rivers doesn't even need to play in the second half and they'll still extend the NFL's best record to 5-1.
Bears (2-3) at Falcons (2-3): Chicago-It sounds a little weird this early in the season, but I really think this is a "must" game for both of these teams. Especially the Falcons, who don't play another game in Atlanta until November 23. They're both only a game out of first, but it really seems like the season could start slipping away if they fall to 2-4. That's a bigger concern for the Bears, who have to keep pace with the Lions and Packers if they have any hope of making the playoffs. Their only two wins have come in primetime road games. I think that changes this week.
Redskins (1-4) at Cardinals (3-1): Arizona-Jay Gruden called a team meeting because he was upset some of the Redskins were laughing on the sidelines after losing to the Seahawks on Monday night. I was actually surprised Washington kept it that close with Seattle. A trip to Arizona won't be any easier. For the Redskins' players sake, they'd better not be laughing on the flight back to DC.
Cowboys (4-1) at Seahawks (3-1): Seattle-This is clearly the best game in the Sunday afternoon window. Dallas has won four in a row since that Week 1 loss to San Francisco, and it really looks like this might be that one year in every five that the Cowboys are legitimately good and end up in the playoffs. A good showing in Seattle could further that belief. It's too hard for visitors to win in Qwest Field, so the Seahawks are still the safe bet. If the Seahawks win, Dallas will be rooting hard for the Giants on Sunday night. If the Cowboys win, Seattle will be rooting hard for an Arizona and/or San Francisco loss. So, basically, this game could end up being very important down the road.
Giants (3-2) at Eagles (4-1): Philadelphia-The flames of this fire have certainly be fanned this week. First that Giants fan showed up in the Super Bowls 0 Eagles jersey (which technically isn't a knock, since it's true). Then Bradley Cooper starts talking all sorts of crap about the Giants (Hey Bradley, you're only the third-biggest star who was in that movie, and Jennifer Lawrence is the one that won the Oscar!). And it's New York vs. Philadelphia. You know NBC is loving all of this. Something's gotta give. The Eagles have the best record in football, but it's the Giants who've won three straight. If they make it four, it could a three-way tie for first depending on how the Cowboys-Seahawks game goes. I think the Giants and Eagles are probably going to split this year. But I think it's the Eagles that win the first matchup this week.
49ers (3-2) at Rams (1-3): San Francisco-The Rams have given the 49ers fits in recent years. I think it was two years ago when they had the tie, then St. Louis won the second game. Last year, the 49ers finally got the better of the Rams, winning in St. Louis on either a Monday or Thursday night. Well, this year, they meet on a Monday night in St. Louis again. And just like the Monday night game on the other side of the state two weeks ago, this one falls in the midst of a playoff run by the home baseball team. This one's a little different in that it's after the baseball games, and that the Cardinals and Rams are both playing San Francisco teams. It's safe to say St. Louis fans will be sick of San Francisco by the end of the weekend. Because the 49ers are going to do to the Rams what I hope the Giants do to the Cardinals three more times.
BYE: Kansas City (2-3), New Orleans (2-3)
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 13-2
Season: 50-27
Friday, October 10, 2014
Baseball Playoff Preview, Take Two
Yeah, so...the Division Series. That went well for me, didn't it? I'm not sure I could go 0-4 again if I tried. (I did get the Wild Card Games right if that counts.) After that stellar start, I'm going to try this again for some reason. If you're a bettor and you haven't put your money down yet, I'd suggest taking whoever I didn't pick.
People have been talking about how great this year's playoffs have been. The Division Series games themselves were good, but to call these playoffs "great" would definitely be an over-exaggeration. And two sweeps with a pair of four-game series mixed in doesn't exactly qualify as compelling playoff baseball either. All four series were over so early that the Royals and Orioles have had pretty much the entire week off and we had two complete October days without a single baseball game. So, compelling? No.
As impressive as their runs through the Division Series were, it seems like none of the four remaining teams are capable of ever losing again. Although, we all know it's impossible for all four to win the World Series, figuring out which one actually will is anybody's guess. You might as well pull a name out of a hat. And raise your hand if you had a Royals-Orioles ALCS. Although, it'll be great to see some new blood in the World Series. It's been 30 years for both of them, and whoever wins the ALCS will without a doubt be America's favorite during the World Series.
The Royals and Orioles have been sitting around so long that James Shields, who started Kansas City's Game 3 clincher on Sunday will be on full rest to start Game 1. In other words, he's starting consecutive games for his team on regular rest. As we've seen with the last couple World Series where one team had a lot of rest and the other didn't, the team with more rest usually ends up getting swept. But both teams in the ALCS are on a ton of rest. The last instance of that I can recall is the 2002 World Series, when the Angels and Giants went seven.
On paper, it looks like this ALCS might go seven, too. The Royals have become America's sweethearts. And, you've gotta admit, they're pretty damn fun to watch. In a lot of respects, the Orioles are the anti-Royals. They love the long ball and, as a result, they're never out of a game. But Baltimore also has something else valuable. A good bullpen. The Tigers and Dodgers learned how important that is come October. (That's what I get for picking the teams with the two worst bullpens to make the World Series.)
Sadly, one of these incredible runs has to end. While the Royals seem like a team of destiny, I'm not sure this long break was necessarily a good thing for them. They were riding such a high and they had no clue what they were doing, especially with those three straight extra-inning wins. Now that they've had time to think about it, the pressure might get to them. The Orioles haven't felt the pressure all year. In fact, just the opposite. They want to prove to the doubters (like me) that they actually are this good. That home field advantage with that ridiculous fan base could definitely have a bearing, too. That's what I think puts Baltimore over the top. Orioles in six.
While no one saw Royals-Orioles coming, we all probably should've known it would wind up being Giants-Cardinals in the NL. Am I the only one who's getting sick of seeing these two in the NLCS? This is the fourth straight NLCS appearance for St. Louis and the third in five years for San Francisco. And they're playing each other for the second time in three seasons. They've traded the pennant back-and-forth for the last four years, and we're now guaranteed to see one of them in the World Series for the fifth consecutive time.
I'm glad to see the rest of America is getting as sick of the St. Louis Cardinals as I am. Yes, they're a great franchise and this run of success has been incredible, but the Cardinals and their fans are just as obnoxious as those of the Yankees and Red Sox. A little taste of humble pie can't come fast enough for them. And the Cardinals players really need to check their egos. "Why are we always the underdogs?" Because you always play a team that's better than you are on paper. That's why.
With that being said, there's no denying something happens with that team when the calendar turns to October. The Cardinals are a completely different team in the playoffs than they are in the regular season. And what they've done to Clayton Kershaw over the past two postseasons, while strange, is downright remarkable. Unfortunately for them, they don't own the other dominant lefty who pitches in the NL West. That, of course, is the Giants' Madison Bumgarner.
St. Louis knows how to win in October better than anybody. Except for the Giants. Including the Wild Card Game, San Francisco has won eight consecutive postseason rounds, a National League record (the Major League record is the Yankees' 11 straight from the 1998 Division Series to the 2001 ALCS). The Giants haven't lost a postseason round since Pudge Rodriguez and the Marlins (who've never lost one) beat them in 2003. Hell, they won 10 consecutive postseason games prior to Game 3 against Washington. The most impressive thing, though, is that they win in all kinds of different ways. This year alone they've had the Bumgarner shutout, the Brandon Belt 18th-inning homer (after being down to their last out in the ninth) and the series-winning run on a wild pitch when the ball never left the infield.
San Francisco might be the only team that's capable of beating St. Louis in the playoffs. Although, the roles are reversed from when they met in the 2012 NLCS. That year it was the wild card Cardinals who went up 3-1 before the Giants came back to win three in a row, the last two at home. This time it's the Giants that are the wild card and St. Louis with the home field. Regardless, it's an even year. If the cycle holds, that means the Giants will win. Giants in seven.
So, there you have it. I'm saying Orioles-Giants in the World Series. But considering my track record, I might be dooming them. In that case, congratulations to the Royals and Cardinals on our second All-Missouri World Series.
People have been talking about how great this year's playoffs have been. The Division Series games themselves were good, but to call these playoffs "great" would definitely be an over-exaggeration. And two sweeps with a pair of four-game series mixed in doesn't exactly qualify as compelling playoff baseball either. All four series were over so early that the Royals and Orioles have had pretty much the entire week off and we had two complete October days without a single baseball game. So, compelling? No.
As impressive as their runs through the Division Series were, it seems like none of the four remaining teams are capable of ever losing again. Although, we all know it's impossible for all four to win the World Series, figuring out which one actually will is anybody's guess. You might as well pull a name out of a hat. And raise your hand if you had a Royals-Orioles ALCS. Although, it'll be great to see some new blood in the World Series. It's been 30 years for both of them, and whoever wins the ALCS will without a doubt be America's favorite during the World Series.
The Royals and Orioles have been sitting around so long that James Shields, who started Kansas City's Game 3 clincher on Sunday will be on full rest to start Game 1. In other words, he's starting consecutive games for his team on regular rest. As we've seen with the last couple World Series where one team had a lot of rest and the other didn't, the team with more rest usually ends up getting swept. But both teams in the ALCS are on a ton of rest. The last instance of that I can recall is the 2002 World Series, when the Angels and Giants went seven.
On paper, it looks like this ALCS might go seven, too. The Royals have become America's sweethearts. And, you've gotta admit, they're pretty damn fun to watch. In a lot of respects, the Orioles are the anti-Royals. They love the long ball and, as a result, they're never out of a game. But Baltimore also has something else valuable. A good bullpen. The Tigers and Dodgers learned how important that is come October. (That's what I get for picking the teams with the two worst bullpens to make the World Series.)
Sadly, one of these incredible runs has to end. While the Royals seem like a team of destiny, I'm not sure this long break was necessarily a good thing for them. They were riding such a high and they had no clue what they were doing, especially with those three straight extra-inning wins. Now that they've had time to think about it, the pressure might get to them. The Orioles haven't felt the pressure all year. In fact, just the opposite. They want to prove to the doubters (like me) that they actually are this good. That home field advantage with that ridiculous fan base could definitely have a bearing, too. That's what I think puts Baltimore over the top. Orioles in six.
While no one saw Royals-Orioles coming, we all probably should've known it would wind up being Giants-Cardinals in the NL. Am I the only one who's getting sick of seeing these two in the NLCS? This is the fourth straight NLCS appearance for St. Louis and the third in five years for San Francisco. And they're playing each other for the second time in three seasons. They've traded the pennant back-and-forth for the last four years, and we're now guaranteed to see one of them in the World Series for the fifth consecutive time.
I'm glad to see the rest of America is getting as sick of the St. Louis Cardinals as I am. Yes, they're a great franchise and this run of success has been incredible, but the Cardinals and their fans are just as obnoxious as those of the Yankees and Red Sox. A little taste of humble pie can't come fast enough for them. And the Cardinals players really need to check their egos. "Why are we always the underdogs?" Because you always play a team that's better than you are on paper. That's why.
With that being said, there's no denying something happens with that team when the calendar turns to October. The Cardinals are a completely different team in the playoffs than they are in the regular season. And what they've done to Clayton Kershaw over the past two postseasons, while strange, is downright remarkable. Unfortunately for them, they don't own the other dominant lefty who pitches in the NL West. That, of course, is the Giants' Madison Bumgarner.
St. Louis knows how to win in October better than anybody. Except for the Giants. Including the Wild Card Game, San Francisco has won eight consecutive postseason rounds, a National League record (the Major League record is the Yankees' 11 straight from the 1998 Division Series to the 2001 ALCS). The Giants haven't lost a postseason round since Pudge Rodriguez and the Marlins (who've never lost one) beat them in 2003. Hell, they won 10 consecutive postseason games prior to Game 3 against Washington. The most impressive thing, though, is that they win in all kinds of different ways. This year alone they've had the Bumgarner shutout, the Brandon Belt 18th-inning homer (after being down to their last out in the ninth) and the series-winning run on a wild pitch when the ball never left the infield.
San Francisco might be the only team that's capable of beating St. Louis in the playoffs. Although, the roles are reversed from when they met in the 2012 NLCS. That year it was the wild card Cardinals who went up 3-1 before the Giants came back to win three in a row, the last two at home. This time it's the Giants that are the wild card and St. Louis with the home field. Regardless, it's an even year. If the cycle holds, that means the Giants will win. Giants in seven.
So, there you have it. I'm saying Orioles-Giants in the World Series. But considering my track record, I might be dooming them. In that case, congratulations to the Royals and Cardinals on our second All-Missouri World Series.
Wednesday, October 8, 2014
2014-15 NHL Preview (West)
When I said yesterday that the best teams in the NHL were all in the Western Conference, I was really only talking about four teams. The Blackhawks and Kings are doing their own little version of what the Giants and Cardinals do in the National League, so if form holds, Chicago wins the Cup this year. But those other two teams in California, the Sharks and Ducks, are also right up there. Outside of those four, the only teams I see having a shot of hoisting Lord Stanley's hardware come June are Boston and Pittsburgh.
With that being said, though, unlike the East, the West is very top-heavy. While Boston and Pittsburgh might be the best teams in the East, it wouldn't be a complete surprise to see someone like Montreal or Tampa Bay or the Rangers end up winning the conference title. But in the West, I'd be very surprised to see a team outside of that top four emerge. Maybe St. Louis, but that's about it. And with two fewer teams fighting for the playoff berths, and a few bad ones thrown in, expect to see a dogfight between the Blackhawks and one of the California teams in the conference final.
CENTRAL DIVISION
The Chicago Blackhawks have emerged as the NHL's model franchise. It just sucks that their archrivals from Detroit aren't in the same division anymore. Because the Blackhawks-Red Wings rivalry, especially over the last couple years when they were both good, is perhaps the best in hockey. Anyway, this team is going to be a contender year after year as long as Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews and Co. are around, which is why they were wise to lock up Kane and Toews to long-term deals. The Blackhawks are also a very entertaining team to watch.
Colorado won an unexpected division title last season, as Patrick Roy earned Coach of the Year honors. The Avalanche have plenty of talent, so I wouldn't be shocked if they contended in this division again. I am somewhat worried about them, though. Because last year could also have been a case similar to the Florida Panthers, who went right back to the bottom last season after winning their division in 2012-13.
For a good portion of last season, St. Louis really looked like a legitimate Cup contender. Then the Blues simply collapsed down the stretch, culminating in a first-round playoff loss to the Blackhawks. They've got the talent to make a run, but which Blues team will show up? I find myself asking the same question about the Minnesota Wild. They did almost the opposite of the Blues. Minnesota had its problems during the regular season, but upset Colorado in the first round of the playoffs. Talent-wise, the Wild shouldn't have problems getting into the playoffs.
Dallas benefitted from the new wild card system to make its first playoff appearance in five years last season. The Stars are still the fifth-best team in this division, though, so they'll need to stay healthy and get some help to avoid a wild card and a matchup with either Chicago or the Pacific Division winner in the playoffs. Winnipeg and Nashville won't be fighting for playoff berths. They'll be fighting with each other for last place in the division. I think the Predators are probably a slightly better team than the Jets.
PACIFIC DIVISION
Where do I start about the Pacific Division? Without a doubt, this is the best division in hockey. Because it's got three teams that are legitimate Cup contenders. (It's also Exhibit A as to why I hate the current playoff format, but that's a topic for a different day.) The Kings are the defending champions, so let's start there. LA's got all the pieces in place to make another run at the Cup, as they look to become the first back-to-back champions since the Red Wings in 1996-97 and 1997-98. If they do, it'll be three in four years. They've certainly got the makings of a dynasty.
The Ducks possibly missed their chance. They had that series against the Kings won, but let LA comeback and win in seven en route to the Cup. They're still very good, but they aren't as good as they were last year. Still, I'd rather be the Ducks than the Sharks. Because San Jose blew it against LA even worse. The Sharks had a 3-0 lead before the Kings won four in a row, continuing San Jose's streak of underachieving in the playoffs. They really remind me of the Detroit Tigers. How many years in a row can you be one of the top teams, yet never actually win? It's got to be frustrating for the fans, the players, the coaches, the owners, hell, everyone involved with the team. This might be their last chance before they blow it all up and start over.
Speaking of starting over, the Phoenix Coyotes are no more. They've been rebranded as the ARIZONA Coyotes. The three California teams are a cut above the rest, but Arizona is better than the three Western Canadian teams. I can definitely see them making the playoffs this season. If the Coyotes aren't a playoff team, it might be Vancouver that is. The Canucks came up on the short end of the coaching trade with the Rangers. The Rangers ended up in the Finals, while Vancouver became the latest team to fire John Tortorella. Now that they have a much more level-headed coach, things should get back to normal in Vancouver. Because the Canucks still have a crapload of talent, led by the Sedin twins.
Edmonton and Calgary. Ah, Edmonton and Calgary. It'll be a long year in Alberta. The Oilers have been so bad for so long that they're just stockpiling top picks and grooming them in the NHL instead of the minors. This is going to payoff with a huge breakout year sooner rather than later. It's possible that that breakout might come this season, but I don't think it will. At the very least, the Oilers will have bragging rights over the Flames. I don't know what's going on in Calgary, but it's not a lot of winning.
Playoff Teams: Chicago, St. Louis, Colorado, Minnesota, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Arizona
I don't think we'll see as many upsets in the Western Conference playoffs this season. The top teams are just too good. The Blackhawks will meet the Blues in the second round, while I'm saying the Sharks beat the Ducks and play the Kings. For some reason, I'm going to give San Jose the nod in that series, setting up a matchup between the Sharks and the Blackhawks in the Western Conference Final. Chicago seizes the opportunity to regain the top spot in the West that it lost last year to LA and moves on to the Stanley Cup Final for the third time in five years.
And just like two years ago, it'll be the Blackhawks and Bruins in an All-Original Six final. And just like two years ago, it'll be Chicago that emerges victorious.
With that being said, though, unlike the East, the West is very top-heavy. While Boston and Pittsburgh might be the best teams in the East, it wouldn't be a complete surprise to see someone like Montreal or Tampa Bay or the Rangers end up winning the conference title. But in the West, I'd be very surprised to see a team outside of that top four emerge. Maybe St. Louis, but that's about it. And with two fewer teams fighting for the playoff berths, and a few bad ones thrown in, expect to see a dogfight between the Blackhawks and one of the California teams in the conference final.
CENTRAL DIVISION
The Chicago Blackhawks have emerged as the NHL's model franchise. It just sucks that their archrivals from Detroit aren't in the same division anymore. Because the Blackhawks-Red Wings rivalry, especially over the last couple years when they were both good, is perhaps the best in hockey. Anyway, this team is going to be a contender year after year as long as Patrick Kane, Jonathan Toews and Co. are around, which is why they were wise to lock up Kane and Toews to long-term deals. The Blackhawks are also a very entertaining team to watch.
Colorado won an unexpected division title last season, as Patrick Roy earned Coach of the Year honors. The Avalanche have plenty of talent, so I wouldn't be shocked if they contended in this division again. I am somewhat worried about them, though. Because last year could also have been a case similar to the Florida Panthers, who went right back to the bottom last season after winning their division in 2012-13.
For a good portion of last season, St. Louis really looked like a legitimate Cup contender. Then the Blues simply collapsed down the stretch, culminating in a first-round playoff loss to the Blackhawks. They've got the talent to make a run, but which Blues team will show up? I find myself asking the same question about the Minnesota Wild. They did almost the opposite of the Blues. Minnesota had its problems during the regular season, but upset Colorado in the first round of the playoffs. Talent-wise, the Wild shouldn't have problems getting into the playoffs.
Dallas benefitted from the new wild card system to make its first playoff appearance in five years last season. The Stars are still the fifth-best team in this division, though, so they'll need to stay healthy and get some help to avoid a wild card and a matchup with either Chicago or the Pacific Division winner in the playoffs. Winnipeg and Nashville won't be fighting for playoff berths. They'll be fighting with each other for last place in the division. I think the Predators are probably a slightly better team than the Jets.
PACIFIC DIVISION
Where do I start about the Pacific Division? Without a doubt, this is the best division in hockey. Because it's got three teams that are legitimate Cup contenders. (It's also Exhibit A as to why I hate the current playoff format, but that's a topic for a different day.) The Kings are the defending champions, so let's start there. LA's got all the pieces in place to make another run at the Cup, as they look to become the first back-to-back champions since the Red Wings in 1996-97 and 1997-98. If they do, it'll be three in four years. They've certainly got the makings of a dynasty.
The Ducks possibly missed their chance. They had that series against the Kings won, but let LA comeback and win in seven en route to the Cup. They're still very good, but they aren't as good as they were last year. Still, I'd rather be the Ducks than the Sharks. Because San Jose blew it against LA even worse. The Sharks had a 3-0 lead before the Kings won four in a row, continuing San Jose's streak of underachieving in the playoffs. They really remind me of the Detroit Tigers. How many years in a row can you be one of the top teams, yet never actually win? It's got to be frustrating for the fans, the players, the coaches, the owners, hell, everyone involved with the team. This might be their last chance before they blow it all up and start over.
Speaking of starting over, the Phoenix Coyotes are no more. They've been rebranded as the ARIZONA Coyotes. The three California teams are a cut above the rest, but Arizona is better than the three Western Canadian teams. I can definitely see them making the playoffs this season. If the Coyotes aren't a playoff team, it might be Vancouver that is. The Canucks came up on the short end of the coaching trade with the Rangers. The Rangers ended up in the Finals, while Vancouver became the latest team to fire John Tortorella. Now that they have a much more level-headed coach, things should get back to normal in Vancouver. Because the Canucks still have a crapload of talent, led by the Sedin twins.
Edmonton and Calgary. Ah, Edmonton and Calgary. It'll be a long year in Alberta. The Oilers have been so bad for so long that they're just stockpiling top picks and grooming them in the NHL instead of the minors. This is going to payoff with a huge breakout year sooner rather than later. It's possible that that breakout might come this season, but I don't think it will. At the very least, the Oilers will have bragging rights over the Flames. I don't know what's going on in Calgary, but it's not a lot of winning.
Playoff Teams: Chicago, St. Louis, Colorado, Minnesota, Los Angeles, Anaheim, San Jose, Arizona
I don't think we'll see as many upsets in the Western Conference playoffs this season. The top teams are just too good. The Blackhawks will meet the Blues in the second round, while I'm saying the Sharks beat the Ducks and play the Kings. For some reason, I'm going to give San Jose the nod in that series, setting up a matchup between the Sharks and the Blackhawks in the Western Conference Final. Chicago seizes the opportunity to regain the top spot in the West that it lost last year to LA and moves on to the Stanley Cup Final for the third time in five years.
And just like two years ago, it'll be the Blackhawks and Bruins in an All-Original Six final. And just like two years ago, it'll be Chicago that emerges victorious.
Monday, October 6, 2014
2014-15 NHL Preview (East)
This is one of the busiest times of the year on the sports calendar. The NFL season is just starting to get going, and we're in the midst of the MLB Postseason. So, it's easy for the start of the NHL season to get lost in the fray. But yet here we are. A new NHL season is upon us, one that actually won't be interrupted by a lockout or an Olympics or anything else. Just hockey. And I, for one, can't wait.
While the balance of power still seems to favor the West, the top teams in the Eastern Conference are all pretty evenly matched. Take last season. The Penguins and Bruins were far and away the top two teams during the regular season, yet we ended up with a Rangers-Canadiens conference final that didn't really seem to surprise anyone. Those four once again look like the top teams in the conference, and Tampa Bay is going to be very good, too. The bottom teams also seem to once again be the same. Buffalo, Florida, Ottawa and Carolina. As for the rest, they fall right in the middle. They'll need some luck or good fortune (maybe both) to go deep in the playoffs, and they're an injury or two away from ending up in the lottery with the Sabres and Panthers.
ATLANTIC DIVISION
There's a clear separation in the Atlantic Division. The top four teams should all make the playoffs, while the bottom four probably won't. Boston and Montreal are probably the two best teams in this division. On paper, the Bruins are probably the most talented, but that run the Canadiens made last season can't be overlooked. If they have Carey Price against the Rangers, that series maybe turns out differently. Plus, Montreal has perhaps the best defenseman in the league in P.K. Subban.
Then there's Tampa Bay and Detroit. The Lightning finished second last season, giving them home ice against the Canadiens in the first round. Where they were promptly swept. It wouldn't be a surprise to see the same thing happen again. Tampa Bay's got the talent to outscore you, but I question Ben Bishop's ability to backstop this team to a deep playoff run. Speaking of deep playoff runs, Detroit's streak should continue. The Red Wings struggled a little bit last year as they adjusted to the new conference and worked their way through injuries, but Detroit remains one of the most talented teams in the league.
In ESPN The Magazine's ultimate all-sport rankings a few weeks ago, the Toronto Maple Leafs came in dead last. No. 122 of 122. Among the factors that came into play were ticket price and the fans' perception of the team's likelihood to win a championship in their lifetime. Well, it's been a lot of people's lifetimes since the Leafs won the Cup. And that's not going to change this season. They might sneak into the playoffs, but if they do, they're going to make an early exit. I think it's far more likely that they'll once again disappoint their blindly loyal and incredibly passionate fans, though.
The other three teams in the Atlantic Division are barely worth talking about. The only one that has any chance of making any noise is Ottawa. If everything goes right, the Senators have an outside shot at one of the wild cards. The Sabres and Panthers are both in rebuilding mode. Buffalo should be a little better than last year, while Florida had the No. 1 pick in the draft for a reason.
METROPOLITAN DIVISION
Pittsburgh and the Rangers were the best teams in the old Atlantic before realignment, and they were again last season after the division was rebranded the "Metropolitan." The Penguins are, obviously, the most talented with Crosby and Malkin, but the guys around them keep leaving as free agents. After losing to the Rangers in the conference semis last season, I think Pittsburgh's window might be closing. As for the Rangers, they made a surprise run to the Final last season, and once again will be carried by Henrik Lundqvist, who's still one of the best goalies on the planet. A lot of pieces around him changed, but there wasn't much of a talent drop off. If anybody else is going to win the Met, it'll be the Rangers.
After the Penguins and Rangers, there's a big separation. Washington, Philadelphia and Columbus are the next group, and they'll be fighting for what should be two available playoff spots. I really like the Flyers. They've got good, young talent mixed in with veteran role players who do their jobs very well. If they ever got a goalie, they'd really be contenders. Columbus is definitely a team on the rise. No one expected to see the Blue Jackets in the playoffs last season, let alone giving Pittsburgh all they could handle in the first round. Now that everyone knows about Columbus, I can definitely see them coming back down to Earth a little bit. But it's also possible last year was the start of something big and we're going to be talking about the Blue Jackets among the top teams in the conference this season. Washington is certainly capable of recovering from last season's rare non-playoff year. They need to get players other than Alex Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom, but those two alone might be enough to get the Capitals back to the playoffs.
Martin Brodeur bid farewell to New Jersey at the end of last season, which means this is the dawn of a new era for the Devils. And that era will be the beginning of a rebuilding mode. This is a shell of the team that played for the Cup three years ago. Carolina's in the wrong division. If this were two years ago and the Hurricanes were fighting with only Washington, Winnipeg and the Florida teams for a division title, I'd give Carolina a much better shot at making the playoffs. They've got to get by too many teams that are better than them, though. (Although, I have a friend who's a fan of the Broncos and Royals. His favorite hockey team is the Hurricanes. Maybe that's a good omen.) A lot of what I said about Carolina also applies about the Islanders. Unless they can get John Tavares some help, their final season at Nassau Coliseum before moving to Brooklyn probably won't end with a playoff appearance.
Playoff Teams: Boston, Montreal, Tampa Bay, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Rangers, Philadelphia, Washington
As we all know, the Stanley Cup Playoffs are a crapshoot. They're the most unpredictable of the four. By a wide margin. But I'm going to say the two teams who's goalies I'd trust the most in April will meet in the Eastern Conference Final. And those goalies are Tuukka Rask and Henrik Lundqvist. As for who wins between the Bruins and Rangers, Boston's the better team overall. They play for the Cup for the second time in three years.
Ultimately, though, whoever wins the East just earns the right to lose the Final. The West is simply that much better.
While the balance of power still seems to favor the West, the top teams in the Eastern Conference are all pretty evenly matched. Take last season. The Penguins and Bruins were far and away the top two teams during the regular season, yet we ended up with a Rangers-Canadiens conference final that didn't really seem to surprise anyone. Those four once again look like the top teams in the conference, and Tampa Bay is going to be very good, too. The bottom teams also seem to once again be the same. Buffalo, Florida, Ottawa and Carolina. As for the rest, they fall right in the middle. They'll need some luck or good fortune (maybe both) to go deep in the playoffs, and they're an injury or two away from ending up in the lottery with the Sabres and Panthers.
ATLANTIC DIVISION
There's a clear separation in the Atlantic Division. The top four teams should all make the playoffs, while the bottom four probably won't. Boston and Montreal are probably the two best teams in this division. On paper, the Bruins are probably the most talented, but that run the Canadiens made last season can't be overlooked. If they have Carey Price against the Rangers, that series maybe turns out differently. Plus, Montreal has perhaps the best defenseman in the league in P.K. Subban.
Then there's Tampa Bay and Detroit. The Lightning finished second last season, giving them home ice against the Canadiens in the first round. Where they were promptly swept. It wouldn't be a surprise to see the same thing happen again. Tampa Bay's got the talent to outscore you, but I question Ben Bishop's ability to backstop this team to a deep playoff run. Speaking of deep playoff runs, Detroit's streak should continue. The Red Wings struggled a little bit last year as they adjusted to the new conference and worked their way through injuries, but Detroit remains one of the most talented teams in the league.
In ESPN The Magazine's ultimate all-sport rankings a few weeks ago, the Toronto Maple Leafs came in dead last. No. 122 of 122. Among the factors that came into play were ticket price and the fans' perception of the team's likelihood to win a championship in their lifetime. Well, it's been a lot of people's lifetimes since the Leafs won the Cup. And that's not going to change this season. They might sneak into the playoffs, but if they do, they're going to make an early exit. I think it's far more likely that they'll once again disappoint their blindly loyal and incredibly passionate fans, though.
The other three teams in the Atlantic Division are barely worth talking about. The only one that has any chance of making any noise is Ottawa. If everything goes right, the Senators have an outside shot at one of the wild cards. The Sabres and Panthers are both in rebuilding mode. Buffalo should be a little better than last year, while Florida had the No. 1 pick in the draft for a reason.
METROPOLITAN DIVISION
Pittsburgh and the Rangers were the best teams in the old Atlantic before realignment, and they were again last season after the division was rebranded the "Metropolitan." The Penguins are, obviously, the most talented with Crosby and Malkin, but the guys around them keep leaving as free agents. After losing to the Rangers in the conference semis last season, I think Pittsburgh's window might be closing. As for the Rangers, they made a surprise run to the Final last season, and once again will be carried by Henrik Lundqvist, who's still one of the best goalies on the planet. A lot of pieces around him changed, but there wasn't much of a talent drop off. If anybody else is going to win the Met, it'll be the Rangers.
After the Penguins and Rangers, there's a big separation. Washington, Philadelphia and Columbus are the next group, and they'll be fighting for what should be two available playoff spots. I really like the Flyers. They've got good, young talent mixed in with veteran role players who do their jobs very well. If they ever got a goalie, they'd really be contenders. Columbus is definitely a team on the rise. No one expected to see the Blue Jackets in the playoffs last season, let alone giving Pittsburgh all they could handle in the first round. Now that everyone knows about Columbus, I can definitely see them coming back down to Earth a little bit. But it's also possible last year was the start of something big and we're going to be talking about the Blue Jackets among the top teams in the conference this season. Washington is certainly capable of recovering from last season's rare non-playoff year. They need to get players other than Alex Ovechkin and Nicklas Backstrom, but those two alone might be enough to get the Capitals back to the playoffs.
Martin Brodeur bid farewell to New Jersey at the end of last season, which means this is the dawn of a new era for the Devils. And that era will be the beginning of a rebuilding mode. This is a shell of the team that played for the Cup three years ago. Carolina's in the wrong division. If this were two years ago and the Hurricanes were fighting with only Washington, Winnipeg and the Florida teams for a division title, I'd give Carolina a much better shot at making the playoffs. They've got to get by too many teams that are better than them, though. (Although, I have a friend who's a fan of the Broncos and Royals. His favorite hockey team is the Hurricanes. Maybe that's a good omen.) A lot of what I said about Carolina also applies about the Islanders. Unless they can get John Tavares some help, their final season at Nassau Coliseum before moving to Brooklyn probably won't end with a playoff appearance.
Playoff Teams: Boston, Montreal, Tampa Bay, Detroit, Pittsburgh, Rangers, Philadelphia, Washington
As we all know, the Stanley Cup Playoffs are a crapshoot. They're the most unpredictable of the four. By a wide margin. But I'm going to say the two teams who's goalies I'd trust the most in April will meet in the Eastern Conference Final. And those goalies are Tuukka Rask and Henrik Lundqvist. As for who wins between the Bruins and Rangers, Boston's the better team overall. They play for the Cup for the second time in three years.
Ultimately, though, whoever wins the East just earns the right to lose the Final. The West is simply that much better.
Saturday, October 4, 2014
The Rest of Week 5
I almost forgot that tomorrow was Sunday and football. That's what happens when you get absorbed in the strange wonderfulness that has been the first three days of the Division Series. (Royals and Angels, 1:30 is past my bedtime!) But it is a football Sunday, and the NFL's got nearly a full slate in store for us. And I'm going to go out on a limb and say there won't be anymore undefeated teams by the end of Sunday. That's what happens when the only two left play road games against division winners from last year (who both lost their last game).
Thursday Night: Green Bay (Win)
*A note about how crappy the Thursday night games so far this season have been. I flipped it on for a couple minutes while the baseball game was at commercial...Just in time for Jim Nantz to point out that the three biggest blowouts in the history of Thursday Night Football have taken place in the last three weeks. Great job on the scheduling, NFL and CBS!
Now on to Sunday and Monday...
Texans (3-1) at Cowboys (3-1): Houston-Speaking of blowouts, did anybody see the Cowboys dismantling the Saints coming? I sure didn't. But more power to them, now we've got Dallas at 3-1 and in first place in the NFC East. First place is a theme in Texas. That's where Houston sits in the AFC South, too. These two are only meeting for the fourth time, and they only play once every four years, so there's not much history to the rivalry. With that being said, I think J.J. Watt is going to introduce himself to Tony Romo over and over again. I don't know why. I just have a feeling the Texans are going to win.
Bills (2-2) at Lions (3-1): Detroit-This game will probably be especially emotional for the Bills. Ralph Wilson lived in Detroit and was a minority owner of the Lions before founding the Bills. And they go into Detroit sitting in first place in the AFC East. The Lions are a first-place team, too, and they're coming off a pair of impressive victories over the Packers and Jets. It'll probably be close, but I give the edge to the home team.
Browns (1-2) at Titans (1-3): Cleveland-The Cleveland Browns have been a very pleasant surprise this season. Almost beat the Steelers, beat the Saints, almost beat the Ravens. Now they come off their bye against the Titans, by far the weakest team they've faced this season. Does that mean a drop off? It'll be interesting to see. Because the Browns are better than the Titans. That's why I'm picking them to win.
Ravens (3-1) at Colts (2-2): Indianapolis-One of a number of intriguing matchups between good teams this week. Baltimore seems to have fully moved on from Ray Rice, and the Ravens look no worse for the wear. In fact, they've won three in a row and looked very impressive last week against Carolina. The Colts have recovered from their 0-2 start, but those wins were against Jacksonville and Tennessee. Now they go back to facing actual NFL teams. Even still, I think Indy pulls it out.
Buccaneers (1-3) at Saints (1-3): New Orleans-It seems silly to call this a "must-win" game for the Saints, but it really does feel like one. New Orleans was supposed to be a Super Bowl contender. Instead they find themselves staring at potentially starting 1-4. The good news is that, even at 1-3, they're only a game out of first right now. The Bucs looked totally clueless. Then they go and shock everyone by beating the Steelers in Pittsburgh. This week, reality sets back in.
Falcons (2-2) at Giants (2-2): Giants-Remember the beginning of the season? Atlanta was going to the Super Bowl and the Giants were going to finish 0-16. Oh, how the times have changed. The Falcons haven't just come back down to earth. They looked downright bad last week in Minnesota. Meanwhile, the Giants won twice in five days to even their record. And they've had a nice long break since their Thursday night dismantling of Washington. I wonder if that messed with Eli's groove. My guess is it probably hasn't.
Rams (1-2) at Eagles (3-1): Philadelphia-After their trip to Santa Clara, the Eagles are no longer undefeated. That was actually the only game involving an NFC West team last week, as the Rams, Cardinals and Seahawks were all off. In its last game, St. Louis blew that big lead in a loss to Dallas. I can't really say much more than I think the Eagles will win.
Bears (2-2) at Panthers (2-2): Carolina-Here's a real test to gauge where these two teams stand at the quarter pole. I thought Chicago and Carolina might both be playoff teams. But the Bears have been shaky and inconsistent, while the Panthers have looked utterly terrible while losing two straight. Fortunately, this week they don't play an AFC North opponent. I think the Panthers rebound.
Steelers (2-2) at Jaguars (0-4): Pittsburgh-I don't get the Pittsburgh Steelers. They've played four games this season and only looked like the Steelers in one of them. They almost lost to Cleveland, got slaughtered by Baltimore and inexplicably lost at home to Tampa Bay. The good new is this week they play the Jaguars. The only team in the league more pathetic than Jacksonville is the Raiders. This should be one that the Steelers can use to right the ship.
Cardinals (3-0) at Broncos (2-1): Denver-Since Bengals-Patriots is the Sunday night game, Cincinnati will technically be the last undefeated team. Because I don't see the Cardinals winning in Denver. I didn't look it up, but I'm pretty sure the Broncos haven't lost two straight since Peyton came to Denver. Arizona's proven that they belong in the discussion among the best teams football. The win over the 49ers took care of that. But winning in Denver is a different animal entirely.
Jets (1-3) at Chargers (3-1): San Diego-Ah, the Jets. They're slowly and surely turning back into their dysfunctional selves. Woody Johnson said this week that (a) Rex Ryan's job is safe and (b) Geno Smith can be an elite quarterback. Oh, Woody. You're so delusional. This team isn't very good and the schedule isn't exactly helping. The 1-4 Jets will soon be 1-5. Because they're not flying cross country and beating the Chargers in San Diego.
Chiefs (2-2) at 49ers (2-2): San Francisco-Alex Smith's first game against his former team is the national late game. It's been quite a week in Kansas City. First that Monday night shocker against the Patriots, then that incredible Wild Card Game on Tuesday night. You can forgive Kansas City fans for being distracted this week. Especially since the Royals play at home with a chance to clinch immediately after the Chiefs game ends (maybe the Giants-Nationals game will be over before then, too). I like the 49ers to pick up a second straight win in their pretty new home.
Bengals (3-0) at Patriots (2-2): New England-Question: will Bob Costas be there? He's in LA for the Dodgers-Cardinals game right now. Anyway, this is a rough matchup for the Patriots after last Monday night's shockingly thorough dismantling at the hands of Kansas City. All we've heard since then are questions about Tom Brady. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. It's not Brady. It's the entire offense. The entire team simply isn't as good as it used to be and has become expected to be. However, it's still rare to see the Patriots lose back-to-back games, and that's still the case. Especially after last week's embarrassment, they're even more eager to prove it was a fluke, so getting a good team at home might've actually been a blessing. Nobody has any questions/curiosities about the Bengals anymore. I think everyone understands how good they are now. If Denver beats Arizona, they'll be the last undefeated team. Unfortunately, I don't see them staying undefeated beyond Sunday night. Because I just don't see the Patriots losing again. This is the type of game they usually win.
Seahawks (2-1) at Redskins (1-3): Seattle-It's been a long time since either one of these teams played. The Seahawks were off last week and when we last saw the Redskins, they were getting rolled by the Giants on Thursday night. Seattle's a different team on the road than they are at home, but Washington's not a good team period. Especially without Griffin (although Kirk Cousins might actually be better). And, technically, the game is being played in Washington (I know, it's actually Landover). All of that should combine for a Seahawks victory.
BYE: Miami (2-2), Oakland (0-4)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-5
Season: 38-24
Thursday Night: Green Bay (Win)
*A note about how crappy the Thursday night games so far this season have been. I flipped it on for a couple minutes while the baseball game was at commercial...Just in time for Jim Nantz to point out that the three biggest blowouts in the history of Thursday Night Football have taken place in the last three weeks. Great job on the scheduling, NFL and CBS!
Now on to Sunday and Monday...
Texans (3-1) at Cowboys (3-1): Houston-Speaking of blowouts, did anybody see the Cowboys dismantling the Saints coming? I sure didn't. But more power to them, now we've got Dallas at 3-1 and in first place in the NFC East. First place is a theme in Texas. That's where Houston sits in the AFC South, too. These two are only meeting for the fourth time, and they only play once every four years, so there's not much history to the rivalry. With that being said, I think J.J. Watt is going to introduce himself to Tony Romo over and over again. I don't know why. I just have a feeling the Texans are going to win.
Bills (2-2) at Lions (3-1): Detroit-This game will probably be especially emotional for the Bills. Ralph Wilson lived in Detroit and was a minority owner of the Lions before founding the Bills. And they go into Detroit sitting in first place in the AFC East. The Lions are a first-place team, too, and they're coming off a pair of impressive victories over the Packers and Jets. It'll probably be close, but I give the edge to the home team.
Browns (1-2) at Titans (1-3): Cleveland-The Cleveland Browns have been a very pleasant surprise this season. Almost beat the Steelers, beat the Saints, almost beat the Ravens. Now they come off their bye against the Titans, by far the weakest team they've faced this season. Does that mean a drop off? It'll be interesting to see. Because the Browns are better than the Titans. That's why I'm picking them to win.
Ravens (3-1) at Colts (2-2): Indianapolis-One of a number of intriguing matchups between good teams this week. Baltimore seems to have fully moved on from Ray Rice, and the Ravens look no worse for the wear. In fact, they've won three in a row and looked very impressive last week against Carolina. The Colts have recovered from their 0-2 start, but those wins were against Jacksonville and Tennessee. Now they go back to facing actual NFL teams. Even still, I think Indy pulls it out.
Buccaneers (1-3) at Saints (1-3): New Orleans-It seems silly to call this a "must-win" game for the Saints, but it really does feel like one. New Orleans was supposed to be a Super Bowl contender. Instead they find themselves staring at potentially starting 1-4. The good news is that, even at 1-3, they're only a game out of first right now. The Bucs looked totally clueless. Then they go and shock everyone by beating the Steelers in Pittsburgh. This week, reality sets back in.
Falcons (2-2) at Giants (2-2): Giants-Remember the beginning of the season? Atlanta was going to the Super Bowl and the Giants were going to finish 0-16. Oh, how the times have changed. The Falcons haven't just come back down to earth. They looked downright bad last week in Minnesota. Meanwhile, the Giants won twice in five days to even their record. And they've had a nice long break since their Thursday night dismantling of Washington. I wonder if that messed with Eli's groove. My guess is it probably hasn't.
Rams (1-2) at Eagles (3-1): Philadelphia-After their trip to Santa Clara, the Eagles are no longer undefeated. That was actually the only game involving an NFC West team last week, as the Rams, Cardinals and Seahawks were all off. In its last game, St. Louis blew that big lead in a loss to Dallas. I can't really say much more than I think the Eagles will win.
Bears (2-2) at Panthers (2-2): Carolina-Here's a real test to gauge where these two teams stand at the quarter pole. I thought Chicago and Carolina might both be playoff teams. But the Bears have been shaky and inconsistent, while the Panthers have looked utterly terrible while losing two straight. Fortunately, this week they don't play an AFC North opponent. I think the Panthers rebound.
Steelers (2-2) at Jaguars (0-4): Pittsburgh-I don't get the Pittsburgh Steelers. They've played four games this season and only looked like the Steelers in one of them. They almost lost to Cleveland, got slaughtered by Baltimore and inexplicably lost at home to Tampa Bay. The good new is this week they play the Jaguars. The only team in the league more pathetic than Jacksonville is the Raiders. This should be one that the Steelers can use to right the ship.
Cardinals (3-0) at Broncos (2-1): Denver-Since Bengals-Patriots is the Sunday night game, Cincinnati will technically be the last undefeated team. Because I don't see the Cardinals winning in Denver. I didn't look it up, but I'm pretty sure the Broncos haven't lost two straight since Peyton came to Denver. Arizona's proven that they belong in the discussion among the best teams football. The win over the 49ers took care of that. But winning in Denver is a different animal entirely.
Jets (1-3) at Chargers (3-1): San Diego-Ah, the Jets. They're slowly and surely turning back into their dysfunctional selves. Woody Johnson said this week that (a) Rex Ryan's job is safe and (b) Geno Smith can be an elite quarterback. Oh, Woody. You're so delusional. This team isn't very good and the schedule isn't exactly helping. The 1-4 Jets will soon be 1-5. Because they're not flying cross country and beating the Chargers in San Diego.
Chiefs (2-2) at 49ers (2-2): San Francisco-Alex Smith's first game against his former team is the national late game. It's been quite a week in Kansas City. First that Monday night shocker against the Patriots, then that incredible Wild Card Game on Tuesday night. You can forgive Kansas City fans for being distracted this week. Especially since the Royals play at home with a chance to clinch immediately after the Chiefs game ends (maybe the Giants-Nationals game will be over before then, too). I like the 49ers to pick up a second straight win in their pretty new home.
Bengals (3-0) at Patriots (2-2): New England-Question: will Bob Costas be there? He's in LA for the Dodgers-Cardinals game right now. Anyway, this is a rough matchup for the Patriots after last Monday night's shockingly thorough dismantling at the hands of Kansas City. All we've heard since then are questions about Tom Brady. I think the answer is somewhere in the middle. It's not Brady. It's the entire offense. The entire team simply isn't as good as it used to be and has become expected to be. However, it's still rare to see the Patriots lose back-to-back games, and that's still the case. Especially after last week's embarrassment, they're even more eager to prove it was a fluke, so getting a good team at home might've actually been a blessing. Nobody has any questions/curiosities about the Bengals anymore. I think everyone understands how good they are now. If Denver beats Arizona, they'll be the last undefeated team. Unfortunately, I don't see them staying undefeated beyond Sunday night. Because I just don't see the Patriots losing again. This is the type of game they usually win.
Seahawks (2-1) at Redskins (1-3): Seattle-It's been a long time since either one of these teams played. The Seahawks were off last week and when we last saw the Redskins, they were getting rolled by the Giants on Thursday night. Seattle's a different team on the road than they are at home, but Washington's not a good team period. Especially without Griffin (although Kirk Cousins might actually be better). And, technically, the game is being played in Washington (I know, it's actually Landover). All of that should combine for a Seahawks victory.
BYE: Miami (2-2), Oakland (0-4)
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-5
Season: 38-24
Thursday, October 2, 2014
The Pace of Play Is Fine
Lots of stuff to blog about. Oslo dropping out of the 2022 Winter Olympic race, leaving just Almaty, Kazakhstan and Beijing. The state of the Yankees and what I'd like to see them do in the offseason. The imminent start of hockey season. But my topic du jour is baseball's pace of play "problem" and the experimental rules they'll be trying out in the Arizona Fall League in order to "solve" it.
Taking a look at the proposed rules changes, some of them seem simple enough, while others seem incredibly stupid and unnecessary. But this is also coming from a person who doesn't think baseball has a problem with the length of games.
The real problem is when the game is humming along through six innings, then slows to a crawl when a manager decides to make three pitching changes in the top of the seventh, turning a brisk three-hour game (which, I don't care what anyone says, is reasonable) into three-and-a-half hours that seemed much longer. The perfect example is Tuesday's AL Wild Card Game. That memorable game took 12 innings, lasted nearly five hours and ended at 1:30 in the morning. Did anyone complain about the "pace" or length of that one? Of course not! Because the game was simply fantastic.
That's part of my point. Five hours can seem like nothing, while three-and-a-half can be unbearably long. The length of games isn't baseball's problem. It's the pace. (Sometimes.) And that's, I think, what these rules are designed to help. If they can do that job and more people start watching/going to games as a result, they've achieved their purpose. So, even though I may disagree with some of them, the reality is we're likely to see at least a couple of these rules making their way into a Major League Baseball stadium near you in April 2015.
With that in mind, let's check out the new rules and rate their level of practicality/stupidity. I might even throw out an idea or two of my own.
Taking a look at the proposed rules changes, some of them seem simple enough, while others seem incredibly stupid and unnecessary. But this is also coming from a person who doesn't think baseball has a problem with the length of games.
The real problem is when the game is humming along through six innings, then slows to a crawl when a manager decides to make three pitching changes in the top of the seventh, turning a brisk three-hour game (which, I don't care what anyone says, is reasonable) into three-and-a-half hours that seemed much longer. The perfect example is Tuesday's AL Wild Card Game. That memorable game took 12 innings, lasted nearly five hours and ended at 1:30 in the morning. Did anyone complain about the "pace" or length of that one? Of course not! Because the game was simply fantastic.
That's part of my point. Five hours can seem like nothing, while three-and-a-half can be unbearably long. The length of games isn't baseball's problem. It's the pace. (Sometimes.) And that's, I think, what these rules are designed to help. If they can do that job and more people start watching/going to games as a result, they've achieved their purpose. So, even though I may disagree with some of them, the reality is we're likely to see at least a couple of these rules making their way into a Major League Baseball stadium near you in April 2015.
With that in mind, let's check out the new rules and rate their level of practicality/stupidity. I might even throw out an idea or two of my own.
- No-Pitch Intentional Walks: Very Stupid-Apparently the idea of a pitcher lobbing four balls nowhere near the plate in order to issue an intentional walk is a serious problem in the game of baseball. So much so that the act of pitching is unnecessary when intentionally walking a batter. Sorry, but I find that entire notion completely ludicrous. How many times have you seen a guy throw a wild pitch while trying to intentionally walk somebody? What if the pitch is too close to the plate and the batter ends up getting a base hit (I've seen that happen...it was in the Little League World Series, but the point remains)? What if they only decide to intentionally walk somebody after the guy on first steals second and first base becomes open? Way too many variables to be able to simply say, "Go ahead and walk to first." If you want to walk somebody, actually walk him.
- Pitch Clock: Stupid-There's already a time limit on how long a pitcher is supposed to take between pitches, but it's rarely applied. The penalty for not delivering a pitch within 20 seconds is supposed to be an automatic ball. Well, now they want to put up a clock in the outfield (like the play clock in football or shot clock in basketball, which are both extremely necessary) that will enforce this countdown. For the most part, pitchers don't take more than 20 seconds to throw a pitch when nobody's on base, so I'm not sure I see the point of enforcing it. If it takes them 22 seconds, so be it. The real issue here is how long it takes some of these guys to throw a pitch once there actually is a runner on base. Yet there's no limit on how much time you can take when there's somebody on, and this rule won't change that.
- Three "Time Out" Limit: Somewhat Stupid-I'm not sure where I sit on this one. Because I like the idea, I'm just not sure about the execution. Teams will only get three conferences per game. Whether it's manager-pitcher, pitcher-catcher, third base coach-batter, it doesn't matter. You only get three. When there's an injury, the "time out" conference doesn't count towards the limit. While I don't think this is necessarily an epidemic, I can see where people think these conferences are excessive. After all, that's what they have signs for. But I can also see where sometimes you need to make sure you're on the same page. That's why I'm torn on this one. For the most part, I think it'll have little impact, since I don't think I've ever seen a team have more than three such conferences during a game. The only change I might make is that I wouldn't count pitcher-catcher meetings against the three. Only if a member of the coaching staff is involved. (Or if they have one of those entire infield powwows. Those count, too.)
- The Batter's Box Rule: Practical-Why do batters feel the need to step out of the box and do their little routine with the batting gloves and smacking the bottom of their spikes and take their little practice swing after every pitch? Especially when they don't even swing? This rule would change that. Unless there's a foul ball, brush back pitch, wild pitch/passed ball, etc., batters will be required to keep at least one foot in the box throughout their at-bat. This makes sense. Because a lot of the time it's the batter that makes the pitcher wait, not the other way around. There's no need to do your little pre-pitch ritual when you didn't even take the bat off your shoulder!
- Actually Enforcing the Length of Inning Breaks: Very Practical-This is the experimental rule that makes the most sense, but good luck implementing it in the Majors. The inning break would be 2:05, with the batter having to enter the box at 1:45, with the break for pitching changes being 2:30. I don't think the automatic strike penalty if the leadoff batter doesn't enter the box by the 1:45 mark is fair, though, especially if the pitcher is still taking his warm-up throws. They have to start walking to the plate as soon as the catcher throws down to second. That should be the rule. And why an extra 25 seconds on pitching changes? Starting the clock at 2:30 as soon as the bullpen door swings open doesn't seem right, either. Especially since it might take 15-20 seconds to jog out to the mound, then you get the instructions from the manager. Ninety seconds to make your eight pitches as soon as the manager leaves the mound. That's my solution. But again, as good an idea as this rule might be, good luck implementing/enforcing it at the Major League level.
- Limit the Number of Throws a Pitcher Can Make to First Base: Nothing kills the pace of a game more than when a pitcher puts somebody on, then is more preoccupied with the guy on first than the actual batter. How many times do you see a pitcher make three or four throws to first before even looking at the plate? This is what makes games grind to a halt and crowds grow restless. While I don't think you can set an actual maximum number of times a pitcher is allowed to throw to first, I'd like to see a rule where they have to throw at least one actual pitch between throws to first base. You can alternate if you want, but no more of this three throws to first, one pitch, two more throws to first nonsense.
- Limit the Number of Coach/Manager Pitching Conferences: The rule right now is that the manager or pitching coach can come out once, and the next time he comes out, the pitcher has to come out. But that's one visit per pitcher, per inning. If you've got one of those managers who loves his lefty-lefty matchups and makes three pitching changes in one inning, he can theoretically come out to the mound six times during that inning. Seven if he wants to talk to the fourth pitcher. That's why games drag when teams get into the bullpen. All those pitching changes and meetings on the mound. While I would love to see a limit on the number of pitching changes a team is allowed to make in a given inning, that would effect the strategy too much and would never happen. So, instead, the rule change I propose would be limiting the manager/pitching coach to only one strategy mound visit per inning. After that one, the only other time the manager's allowed to go out to the mound would be with the trainer for an injury or to make a pitching change.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)