We're less than a year away from the start of the PyeongChang Olympics and we still don't know whether or not the NHL will be sending its players to Korea. Now, for the Sochi Games, an agreement wasn't reached until the summer, so it's not entirely unusual that they don't have a deal yet. Except in Sochi, everyone pretty much knew the NHL was going to be there. It was really just a matter of dotting the i's and crossing the t's. This time, we're not so sure.
To be clear, the players want to go. The IOC wants them to go. The IIHF wants them to go. The fans want them to go. The only people who don't want NHL players to participate in the 2018 Olympics are the owners. And, unfortunately, it's the owners that have all the power in this situation.
Now, to be fair, it's not all of the owners that have put us in this situation. Alex Ovechkin has made it clear that he wants to play whether the NHL shuts the season down or not, and Capitals owner Ted Leonisis has given his best player his blessing. And if Leonisis is going to let one of the biggest stars in the sport go to PyeongChang, how bad will the other owners look if they don't do the same? I'm sure they'd prefer to have their best players suiting up for their teams in meaningful games rather than their countries, but you know once an Ovechkin or a Crosby or a Kane goes, others will follow, whether their owners like it or not. (In Sochi, in fact, the Bruins let Zdeno Chara miss two games so he could be Slovakia's flag bearer.)
That's why I do think we will see the NHL send its players to PyeongChang for the Olympic tournament. Because this is more than a simple case of the players wanting something and the owners wanting something else. It's a matter of PR. The NHL will look far worse if they don't go. Beyond that, NBC and CBC, the league's two major TV partners, will not be happy if they don't go. NBC and CBC are both Olympic rights holders. They would very much prefer to not have to squeeze NHL games into an Olympic schedule they're likely already planning.
Frankly, who's going to watch an NHL game during those two weeks anyway? The NHL is the lowest-rated of the four major sports anyway, and you want to compete with your only national TV partner for an already limited audience? Hockey Night In Canada would likely be preempted for Olympic coverage, and all of NBC's promotion will go towards PyeongChang. But if they do play, it gives them two weeks of commercial time (perhaps to promote a Stadium Series game in Las Vegas?). Plus, the added fun of announcing Team USA at the end of the Winter Classic, like they did in 2010 and 2014.
Whatever logistics the NHL has to work out with the IIHF and IOC shouldn't be significant enough to be deal-breakers. How do you know the owners (however reluctantly) are willing to let the players go? Because they've already offered it once. They said that if the players agreed to a three-year CBA extension, they'd sign off on Olympic participation. As expected, the players declined that. They didn't want to be unable to negotiate changes to the CBA for three more years. The owners knew the players would decline it. But this way, they made it look like it was the players who didn't want to go, which couldn't be further from the truth.
The fact of the matter is the owners don't want to go because it's Korea. That's the only reason. They don't see an ability to grow the game there like they do in 2022, when China will be hosting. And a trip to Korea, of course, also involves long flights and early start times (games are at noon, 4:30 and 9:00 Korea time, which translates to 10:00 the night before, 2:30 am and 7 am on the East Coast). They don't see any benefit in all that travel for games that will take place when most Americans and Canadians are sleeping.
But here's the problem with that logic: they still want to go to Beijing in 2022. I forget what player said it, but he put it best. You can't pick and choose. We either have NHL Olympic participation or we don't. And after five straight Olympics where the NHL did shut down its season to take part, that's what everyone has come to expect.
Furthermore, all of the major professional leagues in Europe have already announced that they're going to take an Olympic break. If the KHL shuts down and the NHL doesn't, it'll obviously shift the competitive balance in the tournament. Russia becomes the favorites (assuming they're allowed to compete.) Canada goes from the heavy favorites to a medal contender (there are still plenty of Canadians to choose from in the KHL that they'll have a pretty good team). The U.S. might as well not even send a team if the NHL guys don't go (although, it's not exactly like the NHLers were world beaters in the World Cup).
I digress for a second to bring up another potential problem that has nothing to do with the NHL. The hockey fields are set and the groups have already been made. Russia's in both tournaments. So what happens if the IOC decides to ban the entire Russian Olympic team because of the doping scandal? Do they reseed the tournament? Who gets the 12th spot? When will that decision be made?
Anyway, the Russia thing I'm sure will settle itself out. Just like I'm sure the NHL thing will. We'll see NHL players in the 2018 Olympic hockey tournament. I have no doubt. The owners can't be that stupid. Can they?
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Monday, February 27, 2017
Sports' Own Oscar Gaffes
Did La La Land or Moonlight win Best Picture last night? I'm still not sure. Either way, that was bad. There's really no other way to say it. It wasn't only THE MOST IMPORTANT AWARD or anything!
Anyway, while I'm sure some PriceWaterhouseCoopers accountants will be looking for new jobs at some point soon, the Oscars aren't alone in their awkward, embarrassing screw-ups ("Dewey Defeats Truman" anyone?). There have been plenty in the world of sports, too. Some were bigger than others, some cost people championships, and still others were so glaring that they led to major changes being made. Some were human error, while the rest were just mental lapses. So who makes it into my Top 10?
10. Jim Marshall: It's often considered the biggest blooper in NFL history. In a game against the 49ers in 1970, Marshall picked up a fumble and ran untouched into the end zone. Except there was one small problem. It was the wrong end zone. He scored a safety, not a touchdown. I'm still convinced that this play is the reason he's not in the Hall of Fame.
9. Lindsey Jacobellis: In Torino, Jacobellis had the first-ever Olympic gold medal in women's slopestyle snowboarding in her pocket, and she knew it. So she decided to celebrate and do a little trick. That's when it all went terribly wrong. She fell, another racer passed her, and she "won" the silver.
7. Thierry Henry: This wasn't that big a deal. It only cost Ireland a place in the World Cup. The officials missed an obvious hand ball by Henry on France's tying goal against Ireland in the European playoffs for a spot in the 2010 World Cup. The French went on to win in overtime and go to South Africa. UEFA and FIFA admitted they screwed up, but that didn't make the Irish feel any better.
6. Diego Maradona: Of course, if you want an obvious hand ball worse than that one, look no further than Diego Maradona and the "Hand of God." This is perhaps the most famous goal in World Cup history. Argentina vs. England in the 1986 semifinals, Maradona literally punches the ball into the net for the first goal in a 2-1 victory, (His second goal a few minutes later, was an absolute masterpiece.)
5. Charlie Jones: NBC's track & field commentator at the 1988 Olympics, Jones committed the one of the biggest blunders in Olympic broadcasting history. During the final of the men's 800 meters, he misidentified the gold medalist. There were two Kenyans in the race. He said the wrong name as the runners turned for home, and didn't realize his error until the results popped up on the screen and he saw that it was the other Kenyan who had won. (At least he admitted that they had completely blown it as soon as the mistake was discovered.)
4. Don Denkinger: The most famous blown call in World Series history. In the bottom of the ninth in Game 6, Umpire Don Denkinger called the Royals' Jorge Orta safe at first even though he was clearly out by a step. That led to a two-run Kansas City rally that forced a Game 7, which Kansas City won 11-0.
3. Chris Webber: Michigan was playing North Carolina in the 1993 NCAA Championship Game. It was 73-71 North Carolina when Webber called timeout late in the game. Michigan didn't have any timeouts, though, so instead he got charged with a technical foul. North Carolina made the free throws and, as a result of the technical, got the ball back, essentially icing the National title.
2. Jim Joyce: Jim Joyce screwed up. He was the first one to admit it. The Tigers were playing the Indians and Detroit pitcher Armando Galarraga was one out away from a perfect game. It looked like he got it with a grounder to first. Everyone in the stadium thought he had it. Except Joyce inexplicably called the runner safe. Once he saw the video, he knew, and no one felt worse about it than he did. The silver lining here (other than the incredible sportsmanship shown by Joyce and Galarraga) is that this game was the last straw that brought Baseball into the replay age.
1. Heidi Game: There could only be one No. 1 on this list. And it had to be the Heidi Game. NBC's coverage of a Jets-Raiders game was running long, so they cut away with the Jets winning 32-29 so that they could start "Heidi" on time. What America missed was two Raiders touchdowns (nine seconds apart) in the final minute of the game that gave them a shocking 43-32 victory. Viewers were understandably outraged, and it's been stipulated in the NFL's broadcast contract ever since that the network can never cut away from a game early again.
Anyway, while I'm sure some PriceWaterhouseCoopers accountants will be looking for new jobs at some point soon, the Oscars aren't alone in their awkward, embarrassing screw-ups ("Dewey Defeats Truman" anyone?). There have been plenty in the world of sports, too. Some were bigger than others, some cost people championships, and still others were so glaring that they led to major changes being made. Some were human error, while the rest were just mental lapses. So who makes it into my Top 10?
10. Jim Marshall: It's often considered the biggest blooper in NFL history. In a game against the 49ers in 1970, Marshall picked up a fumble and ran untouched into the end zone. Except there was one small problem. It was the wrong end zone. He scored a safety, not a touchdown. I'm still convinced that this play is the reason he's not in the Hall of Fame.
9. Lindsey Jacobellis: In Torino, Jacobellis had the first-ever Olympic gold medal in women's slopestyle snowboarding in her pocket, and she knew it. So she decided to celebrate and do a little trick. That's when it all went terribly wrong. She fell, another racer passed her, and she "won" the silver.
6. Diego Maradona: Of course, if you want an obvious hand ball worse than that one, look no further than Diego Maradona and the "Hand of God." This is perhaps the most famous goal in World Cup history. Argentina vs. England in the 1986 semifinals, Maradona literally punches the ball into the net for the first goal in a 2-1 victory, (His second goal a few minutes later, was an absolute masterpiece.)
5. Charlie Jones: NBC's track & field commentator at the 1988 Olympics, Jones committed the one of the biggest blunders in Olympic broadcasting history. During the final of the men's 800 meters, he misidentified the gold medalist. There were two Kenyans in the race. He said the wrong name as the runners turned for home, and didn't realize his error until the results popped up on the screen and he saw that it was the other Kenyan who had won. (At least he admitted that they had completely blown it as soon as the mistake was discovered.)
4. Don Denkinger: The most famous blown call in World Series history. In the bottom of the ninth in Game 6, Umpire Don Denkinger called the Royals' Jorge Orta safe at first even though he was clearly out by a step. That led to a two-run Kansas City rally that forced a Game 7, which Kansas City won 11-0.
3. Chris Webber: Michigan was playing North Carolina in the 1993 NCAA Championship Game. It was 73-71 North Carolina when Webber called timeout late in the game. Michigan didn't have any timeouts, though, so instead he got charged with a technical foul. North Carolina made the free throws and, as a result of the technical, got the ball back, essentially icing the National title.
2. Jim Joyce: Jim Joyce screwed up. He was the first one to admit it. The Tigers were playing the Indians and Detroit pitcher Armando Galarraga was one out away from a perfect game. It looked like he got it with a grounder to first. Everyone in the stadium thought he had it. Except Joyce inexplicably called the runner safe. Once he saw the video, he knew, and no one felt worse about it than he did. The silver lining here (other than the incredible sportsmanship shown by Joyce and Galarraga) is that this game was the last straw that brought Baseball into the replay age.
1. Heidi Game: There could only be one No. 1 on this list. And it had to be the Heidi Game. NBC's coverage of a Jets-Raiders game was running long, so they cut away with the Jets winning 32-29 so that they could start "Heidi" on time. What America missed was two Raiders touchdowns (nine seconds apart) in the final minute of the game that gave them a shocking 43-32 victory. Viewers were understandably outraged, and it's been stipulated in the NFL's broadcast contract ever since that the network can never cut away from a game early again.
Saturday, February 25, 2017
The New NASCAR
NASCAR has a new title sponsor, so it only makes sense that they've decided to make a bunch of changes that they think will make things simpler and easier to follow, but in reality are much more complicated than they intended. I don't know if I'm for or against the changes (or if I'll be invested enough to care), but I definitely like the increased emphasis on winning and the idea of bonus points heading into the Chase (is it still called that?).
The biggest change is that races are now broken down into three "stages," with bonus points being awarded to the top 10 at the end of each stage. Sorry, but that just sounds confusing. The only other thing I can think of where you get points in the middle of the race is track cycling...and does anyone understand the points race in cycling? And the Tour de France has a separate points leader jersey that's different than the yellow jersey. But when and how they collect these points is beyond me.
I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only person who's going to be confused by this whole "segment" thing. I guess the idea behind it is to create an end-of-race like excitement at multiple points throughout the race. Except I highly doubt guys will go all-out on lap 40 of a 200-lap race just for a couple bonus points (maybe later in the season if a playoff berth depends on it, but that's about it).
My guess is that the theory behind the "segments," other than "creating more excitement" is to reward drivers for doing well during the race. I can somewhat understand the rationale there. In the past, if someone led 130 laps, but ended up finishing 30th because of a blown out tire or an accident, he'd only get the 15 or so points for 30th place. There was no reward for dominating the race until something out of their control happened. Now there is. But, if you ask me, I'd bet drivers would still prefer finishing in the Top 10 at the end of the race than winning the first segment and calling it a day.
Now that I'm thinking of it, they probably got that idea from themselves. Because that's pretty much the exact format of the All-Star Race every year. But even in the All-Star Race, being in first at the end of a segment doesn't really get you anything (I don't even think there's any money involved). It's only the winner at the end of the race that gets the $1 million. And in the All-Star Race, they have mandatory pit stops at the end of each segment (they even reset the field before the final one), so it really is like three separate races. What's unclear about doing it in the regular season races is if they cross the start/finish line and just keep going as if they're in the middle of a race (which they are).
One of the benefits of this new system is that all bonus points, from both segments and finishes, carry over into the next round. Likewise, when they reset the points at the start of the Chase, they're actually going to give them bonus points based on their position in the standings. I never quite understood why they didn't do that in the past. Yes, I get the whole "everybody starts fresh" thing, but if you lead by 200-something points at the end of the regular season, you deserve to have a lead of more than three at the start of the playoffs.
Have you ever noticed, too, that these format changes always seem to happen after Jimmie Johnson wins the NASCAR Cup (I do prefer that to Monster Energy Cup)? Seriously, the dude is like the Patriots. The format doesn't really seem to matter. He manages to win anyway. I'm sure he'll figure it out in this way, too. I'm not a fan of Jimmie Johnson (I find is constant winning incredibly annoying), but what he's done sure is impressive. He's got seven titles, the same as NASCAR legends Richard Petty and Dale Earnhardt, but has done it how many different way?
Speaking of the great Dale Earnhardt, his son, Dale Earnhardt Jr. makes his long-awaited return to Cup Series racing this weekend at the Daytona 500. He missed roughly the last half of the season last year because of a concussion, and it's very admirable that he decided to wait until he was totally symptom-free to return. Most drivers (and their sponsors) would be itching to get back in the car and probably come back too early, which is dangerous on many levels.
Earnhardt started a very necessary discussion in a sport where the risk of injury (and even death) is much higher than it is in any other. That's one of the reasons Carl Edwards gave for his sudden retirement, and Danica Patrick has said that she'd seriously consider it if she got another concussion.
Dale Jr. has an impeccable sense of timing, too. Because he comes back just as some of NASCAR's other more popular drivers call it a career. Jeff Gordon retired a year ago (although he ran a couple race in Dale Jr.'s place last year), and this year Tony Stewart and Carl Edwards join him in retirement. Sure, Johnson's still there, and there are still plenty of transcendent NASCAR drivers like Kevin Harvick and the Busch Brothers (among others). So, in a way, this Daytona 500 is a changing of the guard. There are a lot of unfamiliar names in the field, meaning NASCAR's new generation has arrived.
Last year, we saw rookie Alexander Rossi win the Indy 500. It's a lot tougher for rookies in NASCAR, especially at Daytona, so I still expect to see one of the usual suspects end up in the Winner's Circle after NASCAR's Super Bowl. But to see one (or more) of the rookies win a race and perhaps make the Chase, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
The biggest change is that races are now broken down into three "stages," with bonus points being awarded to the top 10 at the end of each stage. Sorry, but that just sounds confusing. The only other thing I can think of where you get points in the middle of the race is track cycling...and does anyone understand the points race in cycling? And the Tour de France has a separate points leader jersey that's different than the yellow jersey. But when and how they collect these points is beyond me.
I'm willing to bet that I'm not the only person who's going to be confused by this whole "segment" thing. I guess the idea behind it is to create an end-of-race like excitement at multiple points throughout the race. Except I highly doubt guys will go all-out on lap 40 of a 200-lap race just for a couple bonus points (maybe later in the season if a playoff berth depends on it, but that's about it).
My guess is that the theory behind the "segments," other than "creating more excitement" is to reward drivers for doing well during the race. I can somewhat understand the rationale there. In the past, if someone led 130 laps, but ended up finishing 30th because of a blown out tire or an accident, he'd only get the 15 or so points for 30th place. There was no reward for dominating the race until something out of their control happened. Now there is. But, if you ask me, I'd bet drivers would still prefer finishing in the Top 10 at the end of the race than winning the first segment and calling it a day.
Now that I'm thinking of it, they probably got that idea from themselves. Because that's pretty much the exact format of the All-Star Race every year. But even in the All-Star Race, being in first at the end of a segment doesn't really get you anything (I don't even think there's any money involved). It's only the winner at the end of the race that gets the $1 million. And in the All-Star Race, they have mandatory pit stops at the end of each segment (they even reset the field before the final one), so it really is like three separate races. What's unclear about doing it in the regular season races is if they cross the start/finish line and just keep going as if they're in the middle of a race (which they are).
One of the benefits of this new system is that all bonus points, from both segments and finishes, carry over into the next round. Likewise, when they reset the points at the start of the Chase, they're actually going to give them bonus points based on their position in the standings. I never quite understood why they didn't do that in the past. Yes, I get the whole "everybody starts fresh" thing, but if you lead by 200-something points at the end of the regular season, you deserve to have a lead of more than three at the start of the playoffs.
Have you ever noticed, too, that these format changes always seem to happen after Jimmie Johnson wins the NASCAR Cup (I do prefer that to Monster Energy Cup)? Seriously, the dude is like the Patriots. The format doesn't really seem to matter. He manages to win anyway. I'm sure he'll figure it out in this way, too. I'm not a fan of Jimmie Johnson (I find is constant winning incredibly annoying), but what he's done sure is impressive. He's got seven titles, the same as NASCAR legends Richard Petty and Dale Earnhardt, but has done it how many different way?
Speaking of the great Dale Earnhardt, his son, Dale Earnhardt Jr. makes his long-awaited return to Cup Series racing this weekend at the Daytona 500. He missed roughly the last half of the season last year because of a concussion, and it's very admirable that he decided to wait until he was totally symptom-free to return. Most drivers (and their sponsors) would be itching to get back in the car and probably come back too early, which is dangerous on many levels.
Earnhardt started a very necessary discussion in a sport where the risk of injury (and even death) is much higher than it is in any other. That's one of the reasons Carl Edwards gave for his sudden retirement, and Danica Patrick has said that she'd seriously consider it if she got another concussion.
Dale Jr. has an impeccable sense of timing, too. Because he comes back just as some of NASCAR's other more popular drivers call it a career. Jeff Gordon retired a year ago (although he ran a couple race in Dale Jr.'s place last year), and this year Tony Stewart and Carl Edwards join him in retirement. Sure, Johnson's still there, and there are still plenty of transcendent NASCAR drivers like Kevin Harvick and the Busch Brothers (among others). So, in a way, this Daytona 500 is a changing of the guard. There are a lot of unfamiliar names in the field, meaning NASCAR's new generation has arrived.
Last year, we saw rookie Alexander Rossi win the Indy 500. It's a lot tougher for rookies in NASCAR, especially at Daytona, so I still expect to see one of the usual suspects end up in the Winner's Circle after NASCAR's Super Bowl. But to see one (or more) of the rookies win a race and perhaps make the Chase, that wouldn't surprise me at all.
Thursday, February 23, 2017
Then There Were Two
Citing calls for a referendum, Budapest has withdrawn its bid for the 2024 Olympics. Budapest was always viewed as the outsider in the race anyway, and their withdrawal announcement read as sort of an acceptance of that fact more than anything else. The way I interpreted it, Budapest basically said "We're not gonna win, so we're gonna just give up."
That leaves the IOC with just two choices for the 2024 Games--Los Angeles and Paris. This after there were just two choices for 2022, and three for both 2018 and 2020. More cities have dropped out of Olympic bid races than actually allowed themselves to be part of the vote in the last two cycles. It's an alarming trend, but it's not the first time that this has happened, either.
After the terrorist attacks in Munich and the cost overruns in Montreal, hosting the Olympics was not a very attractive option for many cities in the late 70s/early 80s. Moscow and Los Angeles were the only candidates for the 1980 Games, LA ran essentially unopposed four years later, and the 1988 Olympics came down to just Seoul and Nagoya, Japan. Then LA 84 happened, cities and countries figured out how to make money on the Olympics, and suddenly cities were lining up to host.
Now the Olympic movement is stuck with a similar problem. Beijing and Sochi spent so much money, Tokyo's budget grows by the day, and Rio and Athens spent money that they didn't have, that people are questioning whether hosting the Olympics is worth it. Nobody looks to London, which did everything right and held a tremendous Games (with full stadiums) that came in on budget while also establishing a lasting legacy, as the example of what to do. They just look at those massive price tags and say "Thanks, but no thanks." Especially in Western democracies, where governments need approval to spend public money and opposition groups, no matter the size, are enough to prevent a bid from even gettting off the ground.
The next Olympic vote after this one, obviously, is for the 2026 Winter Olympics. And it's looking like that one might be a two- or three-horse race, too. Just last week at the Alpine Skiing World Championships, the Swiss city of St. Moritz (which has hosted the Winter Olympics twice) decided not to pursue a bid because of public opposition. Who's to say how many other European cities will come to the same conclusion? It's entirely possible that we could end up with three straight Winter Olympics in the Far East, if only because Sapporo (the 1972 host), which is currently hosting the Asian Winter Games, might end up being the only serious bidder.
It's pure coincidence that Los Angeles is involved again, but that might be just what the Olympic movement needs. Alan Abrahamson, the respected Olympic journalist, wrote an in-depth piece on his website arguing why he thinks LA is really the only choice for 2024. Both LA and Paris have outstanding bids, and they both have such high public support that you know neither one is going anywhere. But only LA is privately-financed. Paris doesn't need to use a lot of public money, but that's still more than LA needs.
Personally, I don't care which one wins, and I know that either city will put on a tremendous Games in 2024. And that just might be the Games that restores public faith in the Olympic process. It's a faith that's shaken, but isn't completely gone. The IOC knows that, too. That's one of the reasons why Thomas Bach is pushing so hard for the joint award to both cities in September.
There was lukewarm perception to Bach's idea when he first proposed it. As late as last week, there were some high-ranking IOC members that were skeptical about it. Many of them didn't want to alienate Budapest by giving each of the other two cities an Olympics while they got nothing. But Budapest themselves has taken that problem off their hands. Does that put the dual award back in play? Both cities have said they're focused on only 2024 and have no interest in 2028. But seeing as only one of the two can host in 2024, does Bach get together with both organizing committees, as well as the U.S. and French Olympic Committees, and come up with some sort of compromise?
Bach thinks the current process has "too many losers" and wants to change that. That's especially true for Paris (which bid for the 1992, 2008 and 2012 Games, and lost all three) and the United States (which would be looking at failed bids from each of its three largest cities if LA loses). It'll piss off a lot of people, but giving 2024 to Paris and 2028 to LA makes a lot of sense. Especially now.
Budapest was never going to win 2024 Olympic vote. But it was going to have a say in which city did. Now Paris and LA have six months to campaign for those Budapest votes, which will likely decide the election. They can't go wrong with either Paris or LA. But they'd better get it right. For the sake of the Olympic movement and its future, they need to.
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
Who'll Make the Team?
Spring Training is officially in full swing, and the first exhibition games are set for this weekend. And with the start of Spring Training comes the debate over who's going to end up on each team's Opening Day roster. There's obviously a lot of time between now and Opening Day, and injuries, trades and late signings usually end up changing things, but, for the most part, a lot of rosters do seem pretty much set.
Take the Yankees. They head into Spring Training knowing their entire projected starting lineup, as well as 60 percent of their rotation. They also have their closer and eighth-inning guy firmly established (assuming Betances' arbitration situation gets settled out, which it will), and some of the pitchers that are candidates for the rotation are bound to join them in the bullpen. So, the way I see it, there are only about two or three roster spots that are really up for grabs.
Masahiro Tanaka has already been announced as the Opening Day starter. CC Sabathia and Michael Pineda will obviously be in the starting rotation, too. The real question is who the fourth and fifth starters will be. Although, since the Yankees play Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday to start the season, they won't need a fifth starter during the first week, which could mean they go with an extra bullpen guy or extra bench guy on that opening road trip.
Luis Severino, Chad Green, Luis Cessa, Adam Warren and Bryan Mitchell have all been mentioned as starter candidates. I think Severino is all but a lock for one of those two spots. For all of his struggles last season, they've got a lot invested in him, and the Yankees still view Severino as a starter. He'll have a shorter leash, but considering how committed they are to this youth movement and their faith in him moving forward, they need to give Severino the vote of confidence and name him the fourth starter.
The fifth starter is much more interesting. Adam Warren has shown incredible value and versatility with his ability to both start and relieve. But Warren's biggest value is as the seventh-inning guy in front of Betances and Chapman. I'd leave him there. I'd also leave Mitchell in his valuable role as the long man. He'll be available for the spot start, but has been effective in that very difficult role. You might pitch once a week, and when you do, it's because the starter got shelled and you're getting blown out, and you're just going out there to eat innings. It's not for everybody, but Bryan Mitchell does it very well.
So, that leaves Chad Green and Luis Cessa. My preference is Green. It again goes back to what you see his role being in the long run. Green has really only been a starter. Cessa has shown an ability to pitch out of the bullpen. That's why I'm going with Green.
In fact, I don't have Cessa on my projected roster at all. Assuming Warren and Mitchell go to the bullpen, you've already got Aroldis Chapman as the closer, Dellin Betances in the eighth inning and Tyler Clippard as your right-handed set-up guy. That leaves two spots, one of which will go to a lefty--either Tommy Layne or Chasen Shreve. Although, I like having the option between two lefties out of the bullpen, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them both.
It's pretty obvious who the two catchers will be. That's one of the reasons why they traded Brian McCann to Houston. Gary Sanchez is the new face of the franchise. He'll start and Austin Romine has proven to be a capable Major League backup catcher.
Likewise, the starting infield looks pretty much set. Greg Bird at first, Starlin Castro at second, Didi Gregorius at short and Chase Headley at third. It's the two additional infielders where things become interesting. I don't quite understand the Chris Carter signing. He's essentially a right-handed DH, which is why they signed Matt Holliday. Carter played first base for the Brewers last year, so that gives them the option of sitting the left-handed Bird against lefties.
I had kinda assumed Tyler Austin was going to be the backup first baseman, but if Carter is going to be on the team, I don't see a place for Austin on the Major League roster to start the season. Because the other backup infielder will be a utility guy, which Austin is not. If Rob Refsnyder can get enough of a grasp on third base during the spring, that utility infield role could be his. If not, Refsnyder starts the season at Scranton and Ronald Torreyes, one of the most unheralded guys on the team, will return as the utility infielder.
All five "outfielders" are set. "Outfielders" is in quotes because Matt Holliday was signed to DH and play a little first base. I don't think he'll play the outfield very much. Brett Gardner and Jacoby Ellsbury, of course, will. Gardner's a Gold Glove left fielder and Ellsbury is the leadoff hitter. Right field is Aaron Judge's job to lose, and Aaron Hicks, who can play all three positions, is really the only "backup" outfielder. I don't see Hicks playing left that much, though. That was always Holliday's position, so if his knees allow it, he'll probably be the one giving Gardner a break in left field. When Hicks starts, it'll probably be primarily in right.
As I said, this is all subject to change pending injuries and late trades/signings. Spring Training performance will obviously come into play, too. It's still six weeks until Opening Day, so there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered regarding the roster. As of now, though, that's the team I'm putting on the field against the Rays on Opening Day.
Take the Yankees. They head into Spring Training knowing their entire projected starting lineup, as well as 60 percent of their rotation. They also have their closer and eighth-inning guy firmly established (assuming Betances' arbitration situation gets settled out, which it will), and some of the pitchers that are candidates for the rotation are bound to join them in the bullpen. So, the way I see it, there are only about two or three roster spots that are really up for grabs.
Masahiro Tanaka has already been announced as the Opening Day starter. CC Sabathia and Michael Pineda will obviously be in the starting rotation, too. The real question is who the fourth and fifth starters will be. Although, since the Yankees play Sunday, Tuesday, Wednesday, Friday to start the season, they won't need a fifth starter during the first week, which could mean they go with an extra bullpen guy or extra bench guy on that opening road trip.
Luis Severino, Chad Green, Luis Cessa, Adam Warren and Bryan Mitchell have all been mentioned as starter candidates. I think Severino is all but a lock for one of those two spots. For all of his struggles last season, they've got a lot invested in him, and the Yankees still view Severino as a starter. He'll have a shorter leash, but considering how committed they are to this youth movement and their faith in him moving forward, they need to give Severino the vote of confidence and name him the fourth starter.
The fifth starter is much more interesting. Adam Warren has shown incredible value and versatility with his ability to both start and relieve. But Warren's biggest value is as the seventh-inning guy in front of Betances and Chapman. I'd leave him there. I'd also leave Mitchell in his valuable role as the long man. He'll be available for the spot start, but has been effective in that very difficult role. You might pitch once a week, and when you do, it's because the starter got shelled and you're getting blown out, and you're just going out there to eat innings. It's not for everybody, but Bryan Mitchell does it very well.
So, that leaves Chad Green and Luis Cessa. My preference is Green. It again goes back to what you see his role being in the long run. Green has really only been a starter. Cessa has shown an ability to pitch out of the bullpen. That's why I'm going with Green.
In fact, I don't have Cessa on my projected roster at all. Assuming Warren and Mitchell go to the bullpen, you've already got Aroldis Chapman as the closer, Dellin Betances in the eighth inning and Tyler Clippard as your right-handed set-up guy. That leaves two spots, one of which will go to a lefty--either Tommy Layne or Chasen Shreve. Although, I like having the option between two lefties out of the bullpen, so I wouldn't be surprised to see them both.
It's pretty obvious who the two catchers will be. That's one of the reasons why they traded Brian McCann to Houston. Gary Sanchez is the new face of the franchise. He'll start and Austin Romine has proven to be a capable Major League backup catcher.
Likewise, the starting infield looks pretty much set. Greg Bird at first, Starlin Castro at second, Didi Gregorius at short and Chase Headley at third. It's the two additional infielders where things become interesting. I don't quite understand the Chris Carter signing. He's essentially a right-handed DH, which is why they signed Matt Holliday. Carter played first base for the Brewers last year, so that gives them the option of sitting the left-handed Bird against lefties.
I had kinda assumed Tyler Austin was going to be the backup first baseman, but if Carter is going to be on the team, I don't see a place for Austin on the Major League roster to start the season. Because the other backup infielder will be a utility guy, which Austin is not. If Rob Refsnyder can get enough of a grasp on third base during the spring, that utility infield role could be his. If not, Refsnyder starts the season at Scranton and Ronald Torreyes, one of the most unheralded guys on the team, will return as the utility infielder.
All five "outfielders" are set. "Outfielders" is in quotes because Matt Holliday was signed to DH and play a little first base. I don't think he'll play the outfield very much. Brett Gardner and Jacoby Ellsbury, of course, will. Gardner's a Gold Glove left fielder and Ellsbury is the leadoff hitter. Right field is Aaron Judge's job to lose, and Aaron Hicks, who can play all three positions, is really the only "backup" outfielder. I don't see Hicks playing left that much, though. That was always Holliday's position, so if his knees allow it, he'll probably be the one giving Gardner a break in left field. When Hicks starts, it'll probably be primarily in right.
As I said, this is all subject to change pending injuries and late trades/signings. Spring Training performance will obviously come into play, too. It's still six weeks until Opening Day, so there are still a lot of questions that need to be answered regarding the roster. As of now, though, that's the team I'm putting on the field against the Rays on Opening Day.
Monday, February 20, 2017
Daytime Ceremonies, Would They Work?
The Asian Winter Games opened yesterday in Sapporo, Japan with a daytime Opening Ceremony. A lot of people liked it, including Angela Ruggeiro, the gold medal-winning American hockey player who's now the head of the IOC Athletes' Commission. Ruggeiro, who's also involved in the Los Angeles bid for the 2024 Games, even went so far as to suggest the LA 2024 Opening Ceremony should be during the day.
Ruggeiro's rationale for advocating the daytime Opening Ceremony makes a lot of sense. A lot of athletes that are competing on the first day of the Games have to miss the Opening Ceremony in order to prepare for their event. In Rio, the Opening Ceremony started at 8:00 and was a relatively short three hours, but that still meant athletes were on their feet for that long. The Opening Ceremony is usually much longer than that. Then, if you throw in the travel time back to the Athletes' Village, it's well after midnight when they're finally going to bed. That doesn't exactly lead to optimal performance, so it makes sense that a number of athletes decide to skip the Opening Ceremony (or, in the case of the 2016 U.S. women's volleyball team, leave early).
In Sapporo, however, the Opening Ceremony started at 4:00 local time and was over at 7:00. They also had the parade of nations at the beginning, allowing athletes to march into the stadium and get back to the village with plenty of time to rest.
Although, the Olympic Opening Ceremony being held at night is a relatively recent development (the first one wasn't until 1992), it's since become the norm. The Opening Ceremony hasn't taken place during the day since the last Games in Japan--Nagano 1998. The last Summer Olympics with an afternoon Opening Ceremony was Seoul 1988.
From a logistical perspective, the nighttime Opening Ceremony makes a lot of sense. For starters, it takes place on a Friday. In a bustling metropolis, the workday commute in the afternoon would make a daytime ceremony a traffic nightmare. Not to mention the obvious fact that the weather is usually cooler after the sun goes down, which is especially important in the summer (I saw another article today that said the daytime temperatures in Tokyo in July of 2020 could be in the high 90s). If you have the ceremony at night, the spectators are more likely to be comfortable.
Then you throw in the fact that a Friday night is going to generate a much larger TV audience for the host broadcaster, nobody in their right minds would schedule such a ratings-generator at any time other than prime time (why do you think all other major sporting events are at night?). You also have the increased drama that comes in with the lighting of the Olympic cauldron, one of the seminal moments of any Opening Ceremony. Would that flaming arrow in Barcelona been anywhere near as powerful if it wasn't against the backdrop of nighttime darkness? Or Cathy Freeman in that flaming waterfall in Sydney?
With all that being said, if LA does host the 2024 Olympics, the Opening Ceremony likely will start in the afternoon or early evening, just like it did in 1984. Although, the reason for that is obvious. And it has nothing to do with the ability of the athletes to march in the Parade of Nations. It's because the East Coast is three hours ahead of LA. So, the Opening Ceremony will start at 5:00 Pacific (or, more likely 5:30 Pacific) because that's 8:00 in New York and 7:00 in Chicago. And you know NBC will have its say and make sure it's early enough to be live in prime time on the East Coast. That's what they did in Vancouver, where the actual Opening Ceremony started at 6:00 (9:00 Eastern).
While the daytime Opening Ceremony in LA would be dictated by other reasons, it is an interesting concept, and I wouldn't be surprised to see somebody give it a try. Especially with the next three Olympics slated for East Asia (after all, with the time difference, a Friday morning Opening Ceremony at Beijing 2022 would be on Thursday night in the U.S.).
It makes more sense to try the daytime Opening Ceremony in the Winter, too. The whole point I made about the heat for the summer applies in reverse here. It's cold either way, but it's warmer in the afternoon and you don't want fans sitting there on a cold winter's night. Likewise, it gets dark earlier in the winter, so you can still light the cauldron with the dramatic background of darkness (or, at least, twilight).
At a time when the Olympic brand doesn't mean much and the idea of hosting the Games is viewed of more as a burden than anything else, it wouldn't hurt to embrace some innovation. And, who knows, a daytime Opening Ceremony just might be the way to do that. It doesn't seem likely and would require a lot of work to figure it out logistically, but it's definitely an idea worth at least considering.
Ruggeiro's rationale for advocating the daytime Opening Ceremony makes a lot of sense. A lot of athletes that are competing on the first day of the Games have to miss the Opening Ceremony in order to prepare for their event. In Rio, the Opening Ceremony started at 8:00 and was a relatively short three hours, but that still meant athletes were on their feet for that long. The Opening Ceremony is usually much longer than that. Then, if you throw in the travel time back to the Athletes' Village, it's well after midnight when they're finally going to bed. That doesn't exactly lead to optimal performance, so it makes sense that a number of athletes decide to skip the Opening Ceremony (or, in the case of the 2016 U.S. women's volleyball team, leave early).
In Sapporo, however, the Opening Ceremony started at 4:00 local time and was over at 7:00. They also had the parade of nations at the beginning, allowing athletes to march into the stadium and get back to the village with plenty of time to rest.
Although, the Olympic Opening Ceremony being held at night is a relatively recent development (the first one wasn't until 1992), it's since become the norm. The Opening Ceremony hasn't taken place during the day since the last Games in Japan--Nagano 1998. The last Summer Olympics with an afternoon Opening Ceremony was Seoul 1988.
From a logistical perspective, the nighttime Opening Ceremony makes a lot of sense. For starters, it takes place on a Friday. In a bustling metropolis, the workday commute in the afternoon would make a daytime ceremony a traffic nightmare. Not to mention the obvious fact that the weather is usually cooler after the sun goes down, which is especially important in the summer (I saw another article today that said the daytime temperatures in Tokyo in July of 2020 could be in the high 90s). If you have the ceremony at night, the spectators are more likely to be comfortable.
Then you throw in the fact that a Friday night is going to generate a much larger TV audience for the host broadcaster, nobody in their right minds would schedule such a ratings-generator at any time other than prime time (why do you think all other major sporting events are at night?). You also have the increased drama that comes in with the lighting of the Olympic cauldron, one of the seminal moments of any Opening Ceremony. Would that flaming arrow in Barcelona been anywhere near as powerful if it wasn't against the backdrop of nighttime darkness? Or Cathy Freeman in that flaming waterfall in Sydney?
With all that being said, if LA does host the 2024 Olympics, the Opening Ceremony likely will start in the afternoon or early evening, just like it did in 1984. Although, the reason for that is obvious. And it has nothing to do with the ability of the athletes to march in the Parade of Nations. It's because the East Coast is three hours ahead of LA. So, the Opening Ceremony will start at 5:00 Pacific (or, more likely 5:30 Pacific) because that's 8:00 in New York and 7:00 in Chicago. And you know NBC will have its say and make sure it's early enough to be live in prime time on the East Coast. That's what they did in Vancouver, where the actual Opening Ceremony started at 6:00 (9:00 Eastern).
While the daytime Opening Ceremony in LA would be dictated by other reasons, it is an interesting concept, and I wouldn't be surprised to see somebody give it a try. Especially with the next three Olympics slated for East Asia (after all, with the time difference, a Friday morning Opening Ceremony at Beijing 2022 would be on Thursday night in the U.S.).
It makes more sense to try the daytime Opening Ceremony in the Winter, too. The whole point I made about the heat for the summer applies in reverse here. It's cold either way, but it's warmer in the afternoon and you don't want fans sitting there on a cold winter's night. Likewise, it gets dark earlier in the winter, so you can still light the cauldron with the dramatic background of darkness (or, at least, twilight).
At a time when the Olympic brand doesn't mean much and the idea of hosting the Games is viewed of more as a burden than anything else, it wouldn't hurt to embrace some innovation. And, who knows, a daytime Opening Ceremony just might be the way to do that. It doesn't seem likely and would require a lot of work to figure it out logistically, but it's definitely an idea worth at least considering.
Thursday, February 16, 2017
100 and Counting
This was supposed to be a down year for UConn. Breanna Stewart graduated and was the top pick in a WNBA Draft where Huskies went 1-2-3. So, after four straight National Championships, this was finally going to be the year somebody else rose to the top of women's basketball. Except somebody forgot to tell UConn that.
On Monday night, they won their 100th consecutive game. 100 wins in a row. Let that sink in for a second. Most NCAA programs celebrate when their coach gets to 100 wins. Gino Auriemma has done that in little more than two years without a loss. Of course, he's got a lot more wins than that. But 100 straight. That's simply remarkable.
Try and discredit the streak all you want. You won't be able to make a single argument that diminishes their achievement one iota. "The American Athletic Conference isn't the strongest league." That's true. UConn beat South Florida, the second-best team in the conference, by 65 the night they tied their previous NCAA-record winning streak. But UConn blows out the other top teams, too. "They get their pick of all the best players every year." And that's their fault? So do the Kentucky men and Alabama football. Does anyone have an issue with that? "It's women's basketball." So what? Women's basketball is suddenly less of a sport, so those wins don't count as much?
And anyone who says UConn is "bad for the game" completely misses the point. The Patriots win all the time. Are they "bad" for the NFL? Is Usain Bolt "bad" for track & field? Is Michael Phelps "bad" for swimming? Is Serena Williams "bad" for tennis? Or, to keep it in women's basketball, is the U.S. Olympic team's dominance (49 straight wins since a loss in the 1992 semifinals) "bad" for the sport? (Not to mention the U.S. men's team, where every loss is a headline-making event.) Was UCLA's 88-game streak in the 70s, which was the record until a previous UConn streak hit 90, "bad" for the men's game?
In fact, I'd argue it's exactly the opposite. They aren't "bad" for the game. They're raising it. Everyone needs to raise their level if they have any hope of competing with UConn, let alone beating them. It's UConn that has its own TV contract. It's UConn that sells out visiting arenas. It's UConn that people talk about. And, as a result, it's women's basketball that people talk about. Without the Huskies, would anyone even care?
UConn hasn't lost since Nov. 17, 2014, when Stanford snapped their 47-game winning streak with an 88-86 overtime win. Which means they've won 147 of their last 148 games. Since the start of the 2013-14 season, they're 141-1. Of the 12 players on UConn's active roster, seven have never lost a college game. The other five's only blemish was that loss at Stanford two and a half years ago!
Is this UConn's best team? Probably not. That honor still has to go to the 2002 Sue Bird-Diana Taurasi-Swin Cash squad. But this is the one that got to 100. And don't think they didn't feel the pressure. They felt it every game.
Nobody thought they'd get anywhere close to this point when the season began. They were ranked No. 3 to start the season, and they only won their opener at No. 12 Florida State by two. Then they played Baylor in a 2 vs. 3 matchup. And won by 11. They also won by 11 in a 1 vs. 2 matchup at Notre Dame, the one team that always gave them trouble when they were both in the Big East. Then they visited No. 4 Maryland...and beat them by six.
So, of course, as the wins kept piling up and 100 was in sight, you looked down the schedule and saw that the team they'd go for the 100th against was none other than No. 5 South Carolina, a team that made the Final Four in 2015 and was the No. 2 overall seed in the NCAA Tournament last year. But, when they went into that game, at a sold-out Gampel Pavilion, with the streak at 99, was there any doubt what would happen? They rose to the occasion. Like they always do.
With only conference games remaining between now and the NCAA Tournament, who knows how many more wins they'll pile up before the streak finally ends? If they win another national title (their fifth straight), it'll be at 113 entering the 2017-18 season.
Eventually, the streak will end. UConn is inevitably going to lose again at some point. We just have no idea when. But instead of waiting for that day to happen and belittling what they've done, let's celebrate their accomplishment. Because, for everything UConn has achieved in its illustrious history, this is something we've never seen before and likely never will again. 100 straight wins! Wow!
On Monday night, they won their 100th consecutive game. 100 wins in a row. Let that sink in for a second. Most NCAA programs celebrate when their coach gets to 100 wins. Gino Auriemma has done that in little more than two years without a loss. Of course, he's got a lot more wins than that. But 100 straight. That's simply remarkable.
Try and discredit the streak all you want. You won't be able to make a single argument that diminishes their achievement one iota. "The American Athletic Conference isn't the strongest league." That's true. UConn beat South Florida, the second-best team in the conference, by 65 the night they tied their previous NCAA-record winning streak. But UConn blows out the other top teams, too. "They get their pick of all the best players every year." And that's their fault? So do the Kentucky men and Alabama football. Does anyone have an issue with that? "It's women's basketball." So what? Women's basketball is suddenly less of a sport, so those wins don't count as much?
And anyone who says UConn is "bad for the game" completely misses the point. The Patriots win all the time. Are they "bad" for the NFL? Is Usain Bolt "bad" for track & field? Is Michael Phelps "bad" for swimming? Is Serena Williams "bad" for tennis? Or, to keep it in women's basketball, is the U.S. Olympic team's dominance (49 straight wins since a loss in the 1992 semifinals) "bad" for the sport? (Not to mention the U.S. men's team, where every loss is a headline-making event.) Was UCLA's 88-game streak in the 70s, which was the record until a previous UConn streak hit 90, "bad" for the men's game?
In fact, I'd argue it's exactly the opposite. They aren't "bad" for the game. They're raising it. Everyone needs to raise their level if they have any hope of competing with UConn, let alone beating them. It's UConn that has its own TV contract. It's UConn that sells out visiting arenas. It's UConn that people talk about. And, as a result, it's women's basketball that people talk about. Without the Huskies, would anyone even care?
UConn hasn't lost since Nov. 17, 2014, when Stanford snapped their 47-game winning streak with an 88-86 overtime win. Which means they've won 147 of their last 148 games. Since the start of the 2013-14 season, they're 141-1. Of the 12 players on UConn's active roster, seven have never lost a college game. The other five's only blemish was that loss at Stanford two and a half years ago!
Is this UConn's best team? Probably not. That honor still has to go to the 2002 Sue Bird-Diana Taurasi-Swin Cash squad. But this is the one that got to 100. And don't think they didn't feel the pressure. They felt it every game.
Nobody thought they'd get anywhere close to this point when the season began. They were ranked No. 3 to start the season, and they only won their opener at No. 12 Florida State by two. Then they played Baylor in a 2 vs. 3 matchup. And won by 11. They also won by 11 in a 1 vs. 2 matchup at Notre Dame, the one team that always gave them trouble when they were both in the Big East. Then they visited No. 4 Maryland...and beat them by six.
So, of course, as the wins kept piling up and 100 was in sight, you looked down the schedule and saw that the team they'd go for the 100th against was none other than No. 5 South Carolina, a team that made the Final Four in 2015 and was the No. 2 overall seed in the NCAA Tournament last year. But, when they went into that game, at a sold-out Gampel Pavilion, with the streak at 99, was there any doubt what would happen? They rose to the occasion. Like they always do.
With only conference games remaining between now and the NCAA Tournament, who knows how many more wins they'll pile up before the streak finally ends? If they win another national title (their fifth straight), it'll be at 113 entering the 2017-18 season.
Eventually, the streak will end. UConn is inevitably going to lose again at some point. We just have no idea when. But instead of waiting for that day to happen and belittling what they've done, let's celebrate their accomplishment. Because, for everything UConn has achieved in its illustrious history, this is something we've never seen before and likely never will again. 100 straight wins! Wow!
Monday, February 13, 2017
You're Not "Improving" the Game, So Leave It Alone!
With pitchers and catchers set to report this week, we know baseball season is getting close! And this year we get the bonus appetizer of the World Baseball Classic! You also know baseball season is on the horizon because Commissioner Rob Manfred has once again popped up talking about the "problem" that is the length of games and his solutions for how to "fix" it.
Except, there's one flaw in Manfred's thinking. Baseball doesn't have a "problem." The fact that there isn't a clock (and never has been) is one of the things that makes the game so great. But because too many people think baseball is boring and takes too long, Manfred has made this whole "pace of play" initiative his primary mission. It started with the pitch clock two years ago, but with the average time of game slipping back over three hours last season, he's made some more dramatic suggestions for this season.
The first one I don't really have an issue with. The proposal calls for changing the size of the strike zone. According to the official definition of a "strike," is the bottom of the batter's knees. They'd like to raise it approximately two inches to the top of the knees. The reason is because the strikeout rate among Major League hitters has gone up every year for the last nine seasons. Umpires are increasingly calling the low pitch for a strike, which results in hitters swinging (and missing) at pitches out of the zone and striking out. By eliminating the low strike, you figure it'll lead to more contact or, at the very least, fewer borderline called strikes.
But that's the only proposal Manfred has brought to the Players' Union that I agree with. I'm vehemently opposed to his other suggestion--eliminating the intentional walk. There are a couple reasons why I think that's a bad idea. First of all, how much time are you really saving? There's maybe one intentional walk a game (if that), and it doesn't take very long for a pitcher to lob four pitches in the other batter's box. Meanwhile, a regular walk can take how long? Sometimes it's a couple minutes if it's a 3-2 count and multiple foul balls.
I also don't like the idea of eliminating the intentional walk because the intentional walk itself is not automatic. The pitcher still has to throw four pitches. There could be a wild pitch with a runner on third. You eliminate that possibility if you get rid of the intentional walk. You also eliminate the possibility of the pitcher leaving one a little too close to the plate and the batter getting a hit. I seem to remember Vladimir Guerrero hitting a home run while they were trying to intentionally walk him one time. And, frankly, other than the catcher remaining in his squat, how is pitching around a guy any different than an intentional walk? Yet, there are no calls to eliminate pitching around hitters.
Just when I thought his proposal about intentional walks was the stupidest thing Manfred could possibly suggest comes the announcement that they're going to use the international tiebreaker on an experimental basis in rookie ball this season. At some point in extra innings, each team will have a runner placed on second base at the start of each half-inning. The idea, obviously, is that the automatic leadoff runner will end up scoring, thus resulting in a quicker finish.
They'll be using the international tiebreaker during the WBC, just like they do in many of these tournaments (hence the name "international"). But, frankly, that's where it belongs. The very nature of tournaments like that require something like the international tiebreaker. The six-month grid of a Major League Baseball season is very different.
There isn't really anything wrong with the international tiebreaker. In fact, it can lead to some crazy finishes. One of the most memorable events from my trip to the 2015 Pan Am Games was the gold medal baseball game, when Canada won on a walk-off two-run throwing error that scored the winning run from first on a pickoff attempt after the USA intentionally walked the leadoff batter (there's that pesky intentional walk again). But, more often than not, the script is the same--sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, run scores. Does that actually add any excitement?
In that tournament setting, it makes sense. You need to keep the tournament on schedule, so you can't have a 15-inning game that takes five hours. It would also put those teams at an incredible disadvantage for the remainder of the tournament because of the toll it takes on their pitching staff (not to mention what it does to their position players). They can't call up more pitchers from the Minors the way Major League teams do every time there's a long extra-inning game, so a long extra-inning game in a tournament like that (where starting pitchers can really only pitch once and that's it) would effectively end their chances.
International tournaments is where it should stay, though. The tiebreaker rule doesn't belong in Major League Baseball. How many games became memorable simply because they wouldn't end? The 15-inning All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium. That 22- or 23-inning Padres-Rockies game last year or the year before. The Harvey Haddix perfect game loss. The longest game ever, that 33-inning Triple A game between the Pawtucket Red Sox and Rochester Red Wings that featured, among others, Cal Ripken Jr. and Wade Boggs.
Part of the fun of the long extra inning game is when it gets late and you start wondering who's left to pitch or, in the National League, pinch hit. Inevitably you see a starting pitcher pinch hit or middle infielder pitching. Joe Torre, in defense of the rule, has said trying to avoid seeing that scenario is one of the reasons why they put it in, but middle infielders often end up pitching in the eighth inning of blowouts, too. And if you don't want to see a utility infielder who hasn't pitched since high school step on the mound in the 14th inning, how about not using four different pitchers (to pitch to one batter each) in the seventh inning alone?
While we're on the topic, there are some things that they can do to speed up the game without fundamentally changing it. Like limiting the number of pitching conferences/changes a manager can make per inning or, even better, not letting the pitcher repeatedly throw to first however many times he wants before he even looks at the plate.
You can speed baseball up without changing it. Especially since it's a pace of play problem more than a time of play "problem." And my suggestions would at least eliminate things that actually bother people about the game of baseball. Seeing as I've never met a single individual who has a problem with the intentional walk or extra-inning games. But what do I know? I'm just a baseball fan.
Except, there's one flaw in Manfred's thinking. Baseball doesn't have a "problem." The fact that there isn't a clock (and never has been) is one of the things that makes the game so great. But because too many people think baseball is boring and takes too long, Manfred has made this whole "pace of play" initiative his primary mission. It started with the pitch clock two years ago, but with the average time of game slipping back over three hours last season, he's made some more dramatic suggestions for this season.
The first one I don't really have an issue with. The proposal calls for changing the size of the strike zone. According to the official definition of a "strike," is the bottom of the batter's knees. They'd like to raise it approximately two inches to the top of the knees. The reason is because the strikeout rate among Major League hitters has gone up every year for the last nine seasons. Umpires are increasingly calling the low pitch for a strike, which results in hitters swinging (and missing) at pitches out of the zone and striking out. By eliminating the low strike, you figure it'll lead to more contact or, at the very least, fewer borderline called strikes.
But that's the only proposal Manfred has brought to the Players' Union that I agree with. I'm vehemently opposed to his other suggestion--eliminating the intentional walk. There are a couple reasons why I think that's a bad idea. First of all, how much time are you really saving? There's maybe one intentional walk a game (if that), and it doesn't take very long for a pitcher to lob four pitches in the other batter's box. Meanwhile, a regular walk can take how long? Sometimes it's a couple minutes if it's a 3-2 count and multiple foul balls.
I also don't like the idea of eliminating the intentional walk because the intentional walk itself is not automatic. The pitcher still has to throw four pitches. There could be a wild pitch with a runner on third. You eliminate that possibility if you get rid of the intentional walk. You also eliminate the possibility of the pitcher leaving one a little too close to the plate and the batter getting a hit. I seem to remember Vladimir Guerrero hitting a home run while they were trying to intentionally walk him one time. And, frankly, other than the catcher remaining in his squat, how is pitching around a guy any different than an intentional walk? Yet, there are no calls to eliminate pitching around hitters.
Just when I thought his proposal about intentional walks was the stupidest thing Manfred could possibly suggest comes the announcement that they're going to use the international tiebreaker on an experimental basis in rookie ball this season. At some point in extra innings, each team will have a runner placed on second base at the start of each half-inning. The idea, obviously, is that the automatic leadoff runner will end up scoring, thus resulting in a quicker finish.
They'll be using the international tiebreaker during the WBC, just like they do in many of these tournaments (hence the name "international"). But, frankly, that's where it belongs. The very nature of tournaments like that require something like the international tiebreaker. The six-month grid of a Major League Baseball season is very different.
There isn't really anything wrong with the international tiebreaker. In fact, it can lead to some crazy finishes. One of the most memorable events from my trip to the 2015 Pan Am Games was the gold medal baseball game, when Canada won on a walk-off two-run throwing error that scored the winning run from first on a pickoff attempt after the USA intentionally walked the leadoff batter (there's that pesky intentional walk again). But, more often than not, the script is the same--sacrifice bunt, sacrifice fly, run scores. Does that actually add any excitement?
In that tournament setting, it makes sense. You need to keep the tournament on schedule, so you can't have a 15-inning game that takes five hours. It would also put those teams at an incredible disadvantage for the remainder of the tournament because of the toll it takes on their pitching staff (not to mention what it does to their position players). They can't call up more pitchers from the Minors the way Major League teams do every time there's a long extra-inning game, so a long extra-inning game in a tournament like that (where starting pitchers can really only pitch once and that's it) would effectively end their chances.
International tournaments is where it should stay, though. The tiebreaker rule doesn't belong in Major League Baseball. How many games became memorable simply because they wouldn't end? The 15-inning All-Star Game at Yankee Stadium. That 22- or 23-inning Padres-Rockies game last year or the year before. The Harvey Haddix perfect game loss. The longest game ever, that 33-inning Triple A game between the Pawtucket Red Sox and Rochester Red Wings that featured, among others, Cal Ripken Jr. and Wade Boggs.
Part of the fun of the long extra inning game is when it gets late and you start wondering who's left to pitch or, in the National League, pinch hit. Inevitably you see a starting pitcher pinch hit or middle infielder pitching. Joe Torre, in defense of the rule, has said trying to avoid seeing that scenario is one of the reasons why they put it in, but middle infielders often end up pitching in the eighth inning of blowouts, too. And if you don't want to see a utility infielder who hasn't pitched since high school step on the mound in the 14th inning, how about not using four different pitchers (to pitch to one batter each) in the seventh inning alone?
While we're on the topic, there are some things that they can do to speed up the game without fundamentally changing it. Like limiting the number of pitching conferences/changes a manager can make per inning or, even better, not letting the pitcher repeatedly throw to first however many times he wants before he even looks at the plate.
You can speed baseball up without changing it. Especially since it's a pace of play problem more than a time of play "problem." And my suggestions would at least eliminate things that actually bother people about the game of baseball. Seeing as I've never met a single individual who has a problem with the intentional walk or extra-inning games. But what do I know? I'm just a baseball fan.
Friday, February 10, 2017
Another Olympic Legend Retires
Usain Bolt. Michael Phelps. Now add Bob Costas to the list of Olympic legends who retired after the Rio Games. I can't say I'm completely surprised that Costas is passing the torch to Mike Tiricio. You knew that was the plan as soon as NBC hired Tirico. I must admit I'm a little surprised by the timing of the announcement, though. I wonder if Costas knew when he signed off in Rio that it would be for the last time as NBC's Face of the Olympics.
NBC made it abundantly clear that Bob Costas was their Olympic host until he decided he didn't want to do it anymore, so this decision was mutual, if not entirely his own. He had earned that right. For most people in this country (and some in the Caribbean who watch NBC's coverage on satellite), Bob Costas IS the Olympics. Baseball will always be his favorite sport. He's said as much. But Bob Costas will, first and foremost, always be associated with the Olympics before anything else.
While he's not for everybody, Bob Costas is my favorite sportscaster. That's mainly because of the Olympics. In fact, that's probably the case for a lot of people. They love the Olympics because of Bob Costas or like Bob Costas because of the Olympics.
Costas now enters what he's calling the "Brokaw Phase" of his career. Tom Brokaw retired as the anchor of NBC Nightly News almost a decade ago, but he's still all over the network's coverage of major events. It'll be the same thing for Bob Costas now. He'll still work for NBC and will still be a part of their major sports coverage. And I'm sure he'll keep his job at MLB Network doing some play-by-play and studio stuff for them. But now he has a little more freedom. He won't be the face of everything.
It also means he'll have to do far less travel. The next three Olympics are all in the Far East. That had to come into his decision, too. That's a lot of travel for anybody, and I'm sure all the traveling he's done throughout his career has taken a toll. And while I'm sure we'll still see Bob in Korea (and certainly in Tokyo), he won't have to dedicate the hours of Olympic prep or go all over the world shooting features beforehand. Now he can be much more selective with his travel schedule.
When he had to miss a week of the Sochi Games because of an eye infection, it became clear to everyone that NBC needed some sort of succession plan. Matt Lauer did an excellent job filling in (and Meredith Vieira was fine on the days she covered), but that was a strong reality check for NBC. Bob Costas had been such a gamer that they never thought about a replacement. But that made them realize how badly they needed one. Bob Costas wasn't going to anchor the Olympics forever.
I cannot think of a better person to take over for him than Mike Tirico, either. Tirico has proven time and again that he's the best broadcaster in the business. And one of the most versatile. We already knew that from his days at ESPN, when he went from Monday Night Football to golf to the US Open to anchoring the Euro 2016 studio show. At NBC, he's moved seamlessly from hosting Football Night In America to filling in on play-by-play (he's the eventual replacement for Al Michaels, too) to doing whatever else the network has asked him to do while not really having a definitive "role" for him.
In fact, I'd argue that of all the NBC Olympic hosts in Rio (including Bob Costas), Mike Tirico was the best. It was his first time covering an Olympics, but you never would've known it. He wasn't just reading the teleprompter and throwing it from one event to another, either. He legitimately knew what he was talking about and threw in some additional little tidbits about events that NBC might've just been peeking in on while waiting for something else to start. The portion of the daytime block anchored by Mike Tirico was the highlight of NBC's Olympic coverage in Rio.
After the hot mess that was NBC's coverage of the Opening Ceremony, it was so refreshing to have Tirico host the Closing Ceremony. And NBC's coverage of the Closing Ceremony was how much better as a result? (The obvious lesson here is: Mike Tirico > Hoda Kotb.)
One of the traditional elements of an Olympic Closing Ceremony is the cauldron being extinguished before a performance by the hosts of the next Games. NBC then sends it back to the studio for a final sign-off. It turns out that when Bob Costas signed off in Rio, it was for the last time.
For the first time since 1998 (when CBS had coverage) and the first time on NBC since 1988, it won't be Bob Costas that welcomes us to an Olympics next year. When they sign on for the first time in PyeongChang, Mike Tirico's face will be the first one we see. There's no sportscaster more qualified or better equipped to take on the role. (It's like when Matt Lauer took over for Bryant Gumbel on the Today Show.) With Mike Tirico at the helm, NBC Olympics is in good hands.
Thursday, February 9, 2017
Almost Another Olympics Already
It wasn't even six months ago that the Rio Olympics opened. Yet here we are, already starting the countdown to the next Olympics. When NBCOlympics.com flipped over on Feb. 1, you knew we were getting close. And now we're only one year away from the start of the next Winter Games in PyeongChang, South Korea. Those Winter Olympics really sneak up on you, don't they?
This will be the biggest Winter Olympics in history, with more than 100 events for the first time. Some of the new events include mixed doubles curling, team alpine skiing, a mass start speed skating race that just sounds awesome, and more snowboarding. Although, we still don't know whether Russia will be there or if the NHL will send its players (more on that one in another post).
And with the time difference, people won't be able to complain about NBC showing events on tape. There are a lot of finals planned for the morning local time, which, as we all learned in Beijing, is the night before here. It's the start of the Olympics' Asian swing (I saw that this morning and liked it, so I'm taking it), with three straight scheduled for the Far East, so don't be surprised if we see a similar schedule in 2020 and again in 2022. You can also plan on seeing some overnight hockey on NBCSN. (You can bet NBC would prefer if the NHL goes to PyeongChang so they don't have to figure out working an NHL schedule around their Olympic schedule.)
Speaking of NBC, they're going to be awfully busy next February. It's their Super Bowl year. Which means a good number of their talent and crew will be in Minnesota for the Super Bowl, then have to be in Korea less than a week later for the Olympics. That's a lot of miles to log in a short period. I'll also give NBC credit for something else. It's great that they've been showing regular coverage of winter sports. This way we'll be more familiar with some of the international names before PyeongChang, as will the broadcasters.
NBC will get a few days between the Super Bowl and the Olympics, which still have that dumb Thursday start for some reason (it's actually Wednesday night in the U.S.), even though the Opening Ceremony isn't until Friday. And it's not until the Opening Ceremony that two of the biggest questions leading up to any Olympics are answered. Those, of course, are who will light the cauldron and how? Those are especially interesting questions in South Korea, which doesn't have that decorated a Winter Olympic history.
Short track speed skating is South Korea's national sport, so, naturally, short track speed skaters are some of their biggest Winter Olympic stars. They've won 53 medals in their Winter Olympic history, 42 of them in short track. And of their 26 Winter Olympic golds, all but five have come in the sport.
Kim Ki-hoon was the first Korean ever to win a Winter Olympic gold medal, winning both the 1000 meters and relay in Albertville. He added another two years later in Lillehammer. Then there's Chun Lee-kyung. She won five Olympic medals in her career, including four gold (two each in Lillehammer and Nagano). Jin Sun-yu, meanwhile, was a three-time short track gold medalist in Torino.
One short track speed skater you can likely rule out as a final torchbearer is Ahn Hyun-soo. Ahn won six gold and eight total medals in his Olympic career, but only half of them were for South Korea. He won the last four in Sochi while competing for Russia as Viktor Ahn after controversially being dropped from the Korean national team. He's a Russian citizen now and very happy living in Russia, but it would actually be a very nice gesture if he was offered some sort of role in the Opening Ceremony, recognizing his place in Korean sports history.
South Korea's Winter Olympic success hasn't been limited to short track, though. They've also won nine medals in long track speed skating. If they want to acknowledge one of the long trackers, it very well might be Kim Yoon-man, who became the first Korean ever to win a Winter Olympic medal when he took silver in the 500 meters in 1992. Or Mo Tae-bum, who won a pair of medals in Vancouver, including the first Korean gold in a sport other than short track. Lee Sang-hwa won the women's 500 in Vancouver, then defended her title in Sochi. She'll try to make it three in a row at her home Olympics, so athletes' oath taker could be her role.
The odds-on favorite for the final torchbearer almost from the very beginning, though, has been Kim Yuna, and it's easy to see why. In addition to being easily the most recognizable sports figure in South Korea, she helped PyeongChang land the Games, and has served as an Olympic ambassador from the beginning. She also dominated ladies' figure skating--the marquee event of the Winter Olympics--for a span of about five years, winning two World Championships, Olympic gold and silver, and setting the world record 11 times.
While Kim Yuna seems like the obvious choice, we won't know for sure who it'll be until the Opening Ceremony of the PyeongChang Olympics on Feb. 9, 2018. And this time, it'll actually feel like winter. Unlike in Sochi (where it was in the 50s most days) or even Vancouver (where there were some warm days), the average high temperature in PyeongChang in February is right around freezing.
Won't that be a nice change? The WINTER Olympics actually taking place during the winter! What a concept!
This will be the biggest Winter Olympics in history, with more than 100 events for the first time. Some of the new events include mixed doubles curling, team alpine skiing, a mass start speed skating race that just sounds awesome, and more snowboarding. Although, we still don't know whether Russia will be there or if the NHL will send its players (more on that one in another post).
And with the time difference, people won't be able to complain about NBC showing events on tape. There are a lot of finals planned for the morning local time, which, as we all learned in Beijing, is the night before here. It's the start of the Olympics' Asian swing (I saw that this morning and liked it, so I'm taking it), with three straight scheduled for the Far East, so don't be surprised if we see a similar schedule in 2020 and again in 2022. You can also plan on seeing some overnight hockey on NBCSN. (You can bet NBC would prefer if the NHL goes to PyeongChang so they don't have to figure out working an NHL schedule around their Olympic schedule.)
Speaking of NBC, they're going to be awfully busy next February. It's their Super Bowl year. Which means a good number of their talent and crew will be in Minnesota for the Super Bowl, then have to be in Korea less than a week later for the Olympics. That's a lot of miles to log in a short period. I'll also give NBC credit for something else. It's great that they've been showing regular coverage of winter sports. This way we'll be more familiar with some of the international names before PyeongChang, as will the broadcasters.
NBC will get a few days between the Super Bowl and the Olympics, which still have that dumb Thursday start for some reason (it's actually Wednesday night in the U.S.), even though the Opening Ceremony isn't until Friday. And it's not until the Opening Ceremony that two of the biggest questions leading up to any Olympics are answered. Those, of course, are who will light the cauldron and how? Those are especially interesting questions in South Korea, which doesn't have that decorated a Winter Olympic history.
Short track speed skating is South Korea's national sport, so, naturally, short track speed skaters are some of their biggest Winter Olympic stars. They've won 53 medals in their Winter Olympic history, 42 of them in short track. And of their 26 Winter Olympic golds, all but five have come in the sport.
Kim Ki-hoon was the first Korean ever to win a Winter Olympic gold medal, winning both the 1000 meters and relay in Albertville. He added another two years later in Lillehammer. Then there's Chun Lee-kyung. She won five Olympic medals in her career, including four gold (two each in Lillehammer and Nagano). Jin Sun-yu, meanwhile, was a three-time short track gold medalist in Torino.
One short track speed skater you can likely rule out as a final torchbearer is Ahn Hyun-soo. Ahn won six gold and eight total medals in his Olympic career, but only half of them were for South Korea. He won the last four in Sochi while competing for Russia as Viktor Ahn after controversially being dropped from the Korean national team. He's a Russian citizen now and very happy living in Russia, but it would actually be a very nice gesture if he was offered some sort of role in the Opening Ceremony, recognizing his place in Korean sports history.
South Korea's Winter Olympic success hasn't been limited to short track, though. They've also won nine medals in long track speed skating. If they want to acknowledge one of the long trackers, it very well might be Kim Yoon-man, who became the first Korean ever to win a Winter Olympic medal when he took silver in the 500 meters in 1992. Or Mo Tae-bum, who won a pair of medals in Vancouver, including the first Korean gold in a sport other than short track. Lee Sang-hwa won the women's 500 in Vancouver, then defended her title in Sochi. She'll try to make it three in a row at her home Olympics, so athletes' oath taker could be her role.
The odds-on favorite for the final torchbearer almost from the very beginning, though, has been Kim Yuna, and it's easy to see why. In addition to being easily the most recognizable sports figure in South Korea, she helped PyeongChang land the Games, and has served as an Olympic ambassador from the beginning. She also dominated ladies' figure skating--the marquee event of the Winter Olympics--for a span of about five years, winning two World Championships, Olympic gold and silver, and setting the world record 11 times.
While Kim Yuna seems like the obvious choice, we won't know for sure who it'll be until the Opening Ceremony of the PyeongChang Olympics on Feb. 9, 2018. And this time, it'll actually feel like winter. Unlike in Sochi (where it was in the 50s most days) or even Vancouver (where there were some warm days), the average high temperature in PyeongChang in February is right around freezing.
Won't that be a nice change? The WINTER Olympics actually taking place during the winter! What a concept!
Wednesday, February 8, 2017
Fixing the Football Hall of Fame
That comeback on Sunday night was absolutely ridiculous. As soon as Atlanta punted, I knew the Patriots were going to tie the game. Just like I knew New England was going to score as soon as they won the overtime coin toss. But I'm not here to talk about one of the most remarkable comebacks in sports history. Mainly because a lot has happened since then.
One of the other big things to come out of Super Bowl Weekend was the reaction to the Hall of Fame vote. Mainly the reaction (or, in his case, overreaction) to Terrell Owens not getting in. Personally, I'm not surprised he didn't make it. I didn't think he would. And I'm not disappointed he didn't make it, either. Do I think he's a Hall of Famer? Probably. But was he one of the five best candidates among this year's finalists? No.
What the non-election of TO has done, though, is lead to some legitimate criticism/discussion about the Football Hall of Fame voting process. And I think that's a good thing. Because the voting for the Football Hall of Fame is way too ambiguous, and some of the calls about cronyism or favoritism don't seem that unfounded. I'd like to see a process that's much more transparent. That would eliminate so much of the guessing that comes with the election every year.
Before they started introducing the Hall of Fame class during the NFL Honors (which I think is a really nice touch), they announced the class at a press conference on the Saturday afternoon before the Super Bowl. During that press conference, they revealed who made the cut from 15 to 10, then, since they almost always elect five, we thus also know who made the cut from 10 to five. They don't do that anymore. Why not? That would be a start.
Another thing I'd like to see is vote totals. In baseball, guys need 75 percent of the vote in order to be elected. That vote total is always made public (and starting next year, so will each voter's ballot). All we know about the Football Hall of Fame vote is that you need 80 percent once you make the final five. But seeing as the final five always get the required 80 percent, why is that even a requirement? Just do the vote at 10 and the five guys that get the most get in.
Evidently, there are 46 players all-time that have been voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame unanimously. Not surprisingly, Brett Favre was the last. I don't know about you, but I'd love to know who the other 45 are. I'd assume that all of those unanimous selections were in their first year of eligibility (if I had to guess, I'd say Jerry Rice is another, just like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady will be once they're eligible). Maybe that's the football equivalent of first-ballot induction in baseball.
Then there's the class size. How did they arbitrarily settle on a class of five? There are 32 teams in the NFL, and they all have 22 starters, which means there are more than 700 starters in the NFL each season. So, that's less than the "top 1 percent" that's supposed to represent Hall of Famers. And, of course, you have to throw in all of those other worthy players who haven't been inducted yet, but remain on the ballot for each successive election.
I think five is too low a number. They could easily increase that number to seven, or even six, and not dilute the quality of the class one bit. That would also free up some of the congestion on the ballot and prevent them from having those years where they do some "housekeeping" by electing only players that have been waiting a while.
Speaking of waiting a while, the number of Hall of Fame locks that have retired recently is very high. Ray Lewis, a slam dunk first-ballot candidate, Randy Moss and Brian Urlacher all become eligible next year. Then Tony Gonzalez in 2019, Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu and Reggie Wayne in 2020, and another lethal threesome (Peyton Manning, Charles Woodson and Champ Bailey) in 2021. If they all get elected on the first ballot, that limits the number of spots for carryover candidates. That would be less of a problem if the class size was even one person larger.
There's also the issue of the electorate itself. There are only 46 selectors and that group, by and large, remains the same year after year. They're the only ones who decide who gets into the Hall of Fame, so favorites and personal biases almost certainly come into play (whether it's deliberate or not really doesn't matter). If they didn't have a good relationship with a particular player, they have the power to keep him out.
A lot of people think that's why it took so long for Charles Haley to be selected, and that's probably working against Terrell Owens, too. Likewise, despite the fact that there were no punters in the Hall of Fame and he was the best one ever, it took how long for Ray Guy to finally make it (and it wasn't until he was the senior candidate that he finally did)? Punter isn't the only position that's grossly underrepresented, either. There was such a backlog of wide receivers that's finally getting somewhat sorted out, but pretty soon they're gonna have four safeties (Brian Dawkins, John Lynch, Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu) that are all deserving.
The selection committee is almost too exclusive. I'd like to see some additional members. I don't necessarily think they need to include current Hall of Famers like some other people do, but it absolutely needs to be more than just the current group. Or, if you want to keep that selection group the same size (which may be more manageable for an in-person meeting), have term limits. That way there'll be some new blood each year instead of just the same people being the only ones voting over and over again.
Getting into the Hall of Fame is supposed to be hard. Especially since everyone has their own opinions on what makes a Hall of Famer and different views on how one guy stacks up to another. That's why it's such an honor to be elected. But that doesn't mean the election process is perfect. In fact, it's very flawed. And taking a look at the process might not be that bad an idea.
Not to discredit the work done by the selection committee, which spends hours going over the candidates every year on the day before the Super Bowl and picks what they believe is the best class. I bet they wouldn't mind an improved process either, though. Maybe that would lead to less scrutiny. And maybe then we'll be talking about who did make the Hall of Fame rather than who didn't.
One of the other big things to come out of Super Bowl Weekend was the reaction to the Hall of Fame vote. Mainly the reaction (or, in his case, overreaction) to Terrell Owens not getting in. Personally, I'm not surprised he didn't make it. I didn't think he would. And I'm not disappointed he didn't make it, either. Do I think he's a Hall of Famer? Probably. But was he one of the five best candidates among this year's finalists? No.
What the non-election of TO has done, though, is lead to some legitimate criticism/discussion about the Football Hall of Fame voting process. And I think that's a good thing. Because the voting for the Football Hall of Fame is way too ambiguous, and some of the calls about cronyism or favoritism don't seem that unfounded. I'd like to see a process that's much more transparent. That would eliminate so much of the guessing that comes with the election every year.
Before they started introducing the Hall of Fame class during the NFL Honors (which I think is a really nice touch), they announced the class at a press conference on the Saturday afternoon before the Super Bowl. During that press conference, they revealed who made the cut from 15 to 10, then, since they almost always elect five, we thus also know who made the cut from 10 to five. They don't do that anymore. Why not? That would be a start.
Another thing I'd like to see is vote totals. In baseball, guys need 75 percent of the vote in order to be elected. That vote total is always made public (and starting next year, so will each voter's ballot). All we know about the Football Hall of Fame vote is that you need 80 percent once you make the final five. But seeing as the final five always get the required 80 percent, why is that even a requirement? Just do the vote at 10 and the five guys that get the most get in.
Evidently, there are 46 players all-time that have been voted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame unanimously. Not surprisingly, Brett Favre was the last. I don't know about you, but I'd love to know who the other 45 are. I'd assume that all of those unanimous selections were in their first year of eligibility (if I had to guess, I'd say Jerry Rice is another, just like Peyton Manning and Tom Brady will be once they're eligible). Maybe that's the football equivalent of first-ballot induction in baseball.
Then there's the class size. How did they arbitrarily settle on a class of five? There are 32 teams in the NFL, and they all have 22 starters, which means there are more than 700 starters in the NFL each season. So, that's less than the "top 1 percent" that's supposed to represent Hall of Famers. And, of course, you have to throw in all of those other worthy players who haven't been inducted yet, but remain on the ballot for each successive election.
I think five is too low a number. They could easily increase that number to seven, or even six, and not dilute the quality of the class one bit. That would also free up some of the congestion on the ballot and prevent them from having those years where they do some "housekeeping" by electing only players that have been waiting a while.
Speaking of waiting a while, the number of Hall of Fame locks that have retired recently is very high. Ray Lewis, a slam dunk first-ballot candidate, Randy Moss and Brian Urlacher all become eligible next year. Then Tony Gonzalez in 2019, Ed Reed, Troy Polamalu and Reggie Wayne in 2020, and another lethal threesome (Peyton Manning, Charles Woodson and Champ Bailey) in 2021. If they all get elected on the first ballot, that limits the number of spots for carryover candidates. That would be less of a problem if the class size was even one person larger.
There's also the issue of the electorate itself. There are only 46 selectors and that group, by and large, remains the same year after year. They're the only ones who decide who gets into the Hall of Fame, so favorites and personal biases almost certainly come into play (whether it's deliberate or not really doesn't matter). If they didn't have a good relationship with a particular player, they have the power to keep him out.
A lot of people think that's why it took so long for Charles Haley to be selected, and that's probably working against Terrell Owens, too. Likewise, despite the fact that there were no punters in the Hall of Fame and he was the best one ever, it took how long for Ray Guy to finally make it (and it wasn't until he was the senior candidate that he finally did)? Punter isn't the only position that's grossly underrepresented, either. There was such a backlog of wide receivers that's finally getting somewhat sorted out, but pretty soon they're gonna have four safeties (Brian Dawkins, John Lynch, Ed Reed and Troy Polamalu) that are all deserving.
The selection committee is almost too exclusive. I'd like to see some additional members. I don't necessarily think they need to include current Hall of Famers like some other people do, but it absolutely needs to be more than just the current group. Or, if you want to keep that selection group the same size (which may be more manageable for an in-person meeting), have term limits. That way there'll be some new blood each year instead of just the same people being the only ones voting over and over again.
Getting into the Hall of Fame is supposed to be hard. Especially since everyone has their own opinions on what makes a Hall of Famer and different views on how one guy stacks up to another. That's why it's such an honor to be elected. But that doesn't mean the election process is perfect. In fact, it's very flawed. And taking a look at the process might not be that bad an idea.
Not to discredit the work done by the selection committee, which spends hours going over the candidates every year on the day before the Super Bowl and picks what they believe is the best class. I bet they wouldn't mind an improved process either, though. Maybe that would lead to less scrutiny. And maybe then we'll be talking about who did make the Hall of Fame rather than who didn't.
Sunday, February 5, 2017
NFL Playoffs -- Super Bowl LI
I'm not in the business of defending Roger Goodell, but in this case, I feel the need to comment. It's incredibly stupid that people are criticizing him for going to the NFC Championship Game instead of the AFC Championship Game. There wasn't any sort of ulterior motive for his decision to go to Atlanta instead of New England--and it had nothing to do with Deflategate! It was because the Falcons were hosting the NFC Championship Game and had a chance to go to the Super Bowl for the first time in 19 years! It was also the last game ever at the Georgia Dome! Meanwhile, the Patriots are in the AFC Championship Game every freakin' year! Seeing as it was physically impossible for him to go to both games, it only makes sense that he chose to go to Atlanta.
Anyway, there's no way for Goodell to avoid Brady in Houston. A lot of people want to see the Patriots win simply because they want to see how awkward it'll be when Goodell gives the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Robert Kraft. It's been compared to the situation after Super Bowl XVIII, when Pete Rozelle presented the trophy to the thorn in his side, Al Davis. I don't think it'll be quite that contentious, but it would definitely be interesting nonetheless.
Of course, Atlanta has other ideas. And you know there would be no awkwardness at all if Goodell hands the trophy to Arthur Blank. Especially since it would be the first championship in the history of a team that's as old as the Super Bowl. The Falcons may be the underdog, but they're absolutely capable of pulling off the upset.
The key for Atlanta will be making the Patriots' defense stay on the field. The Falcons have a dynamic offense, but going for the quick strike against New England is a recipe for disaster. It gives the Patriots the chance to make big plays and get the ball in Brady's hands. Long drives will also keep Brady off the field. Those drives have to end up in touchdowns, though. Because if they settle for field goals, Brady will make them pay.
Atlanta's strength is obviously the best offense in football. So, it would make sense to want to keep MVP Matt Ryan and Julio Jones on the field. Stopping Jones will obviously be the Patriots' top defensive priority. Which means the onus falls on the Falcons' great offensive line (the only unit that had the same five starters in every game) and running backs Devonta Freeman and Tevin Coleman. The Falcons like to use them both, and that could work in their favor, especially if the Patriots put in different personnel depending on which one's in the game.
New England's offense is set up to work quickly and this is Brady's seventh time here, so giving him too much time to work is very dangerous. Atlanta's defense will have to take a lesson from what Pittsburgh did (or, I should say, didn't do) in the AFC Championship Game. You can't sit back in a zone and give Brady the middle of the field. If you do that, he'll eat your defense for dinner, just like he did to the Steelers.
That puts the onus on the Atlanta defense, which ranks in the bottom third of the league. Although, the Falcons do have an absolute stud in Vic Beasley. Along with Dwight Freeney (the only guy they've got who's been here before), Beasley gives the Falcons a very formidable pass rush. Seeing as New England has no running game, that could actually work in the Falcons' favor. Stopping the Patriots on third down is an absolute must, as well.
Speaking of defense, New England's is the top-rated unit in football. This team has been all about Tom Brady for so long that it's easy to forget that. But this might be Belichick's best defense since the 18-1 team that lost to the Giants. And we all know what happened in that Super Bowl. What the Giants did then is what the Falcons will have to do now. Atlanta doesn't need it to be a shootout. But they do need to score enough. The Patriots are great while playing with a lead, and the only time they've given up 20 points all season was their loss to Seattle. So three touchdowns should be the target number. If the Falcons can score three times and maybe add a field goal, they should be in good shape.
Falcons (13-5) vs. Patriots (16-2): New England-So why is the pick New England then? Well, there are really two reasons. The first is that the No. 1 defense vs. No. 1 offense matchup tends to lean the defense's way. Take last year. Or the Seattle-Denver blowout. The other reason is the obvious one. New England has been on this so-called "Revenge Tour" all year. Their sole mission was to get back to the Super Bowl, win it, and force that awkward situation where Goodell has to give Kraft the trophy. Through everything, the Patriots always end up there. They were supposed to be "down" this season, yet here they are in an NFL-record ninth Super Bowl (the seventh for Bradicheck).
We'll probably see a close one. For the Patriots, a Super Bowl blowout is four points. But, unless they're playing the Giants, New England always manages to come up with big play (or plays) it needs at the end. Take two years ago, when Dan Quinn was on the Seahawks sideline for the worst play call in Super Bowl history, which sealed the Patriots' last championship. I think Atlanta has a chance, and I wouldn't consider it as much of a surprise as some others if they did manage to win it. But you know Belichick has something up his sleeve that no one has ever seen before. And you know some unsung Patriot is going to emerge as their latest Super Bowl hero. I want Atlanta to win (this is the first time in my life I've ever rooted for the Atlanta Falcons), for a number of reasons, but I think the Patriots will. 27-24.
Last Week: 1-1
Postseason: 5-5
Overall: 172-92-2
Anyway, there's no way for Goodell to avoid Brady in Houston. A lot of people want to see the Patriots win simply because they want to see how awkward it'll be when Goodell gives the Vince Lombardi Trophy to Robert Kraft. It's been compared to the situation after Super Bowl XVIII, when Pete Rozelle presented the trophy to the thorn in his side, Al Davis. I don't think it'll be quite that contentious, but it would definitely be interesting nonetheless.
Of course, Atlanta has other ideas. And you know there would be no awkwardness at all if Goodell hands the trophy to Arthur Blank. Especially since it would be the first championship in the history of a team that's as old as the Super Bowl. The Falcons may be the underdog, but they're absolutely capable of pulling off the upset.
The key for Atlanta will be making the Patriots' defense stay on the field. The Falcons have a dynamic offense, but going for the quick strike against New England is a recipe for disaster. It gives the Patriots the chance to make big plays and get the ball in Brady's hands. Long drives will also keep Brady off the field. Those drives have to end up in touchdowns, though. Because if they settle for field goals, Brady will make them pay.
Atlanta's strength is obviously the best offense in football. So, it would make sense to want to keep MVP Matt Ryan and Julio Jones on the field. Stopping Jones will obviously be the Patriots' top defensive priority. Which means the onus falls on the Falcons' great offensive line (the only unit that had the same five starters in every game) and running backs Devonta Freeman and Tevin Coleman. The Falcons like to use them both, and that could work in their favor, especially if the Patriots put in different personnel depending on which one's in the game.
New England's offense is set up to work quickly and this is Brady's seventh time here, so giving him too much time to work is very dangerous. Atlanta's defense will have to take a lesson from what Pittsburgh did (or, I should say, didn't do) in the AFC Championship Game. You can't sit back in a zone and give Brady the middle of the field. If you do that, he'll eat your defense for dinner, just like he did to the Steelers.
That puts the onus on the Atlanta defense, which ranks in the bottom third of the league. Although, the Falcons do have an absolute stud in Vic Beasley. Along with Dwight Freeney (the only guy they've got who's been here before), Beasley gives the Falcons a very formidable pass rush. Seeing as New England has no running game, that could actually work in the Falcons' favor. Stopping the Patriots on third down is an absolute must, as well.
Speaking of defense, New England's is the top-rated unit in football. This team has been all about Tom Brady for so long that it's easy to forget that. But this might be Belichick's best defense since the 18-1 team that lost to the Giants. And we all know what happened in that Super Bowl. What the Giants did then is what the Falcons will have to do now. Atlanta doesn't need it to be a shootout. But they do need to score enough. The Patriots are great while playing with a lead, and the only time they've given up 20 points all season was their loss to Seattle. So three touchdowns should be the target number. If the Falcons can score three times and maybe add a field goal, they should be in good shape.
Falcons (13-5) vs. Patriots (16-2): New England-So why is the pick New England then? Well, there are really two reasons. The first is that the No. 1 defense vs. No. 1 offense matchup tends to lean the defense's way. Take last year. Or the Seattle-Denver blowout. The other reason is the obvious one. New England has been on this so-called "Revenge Tour" all year. Their sole mission was to get back to the Super Bowl, win it, and force that awkward situation where Goodell has to give Kraft the trophy. Through everything, the Patriots always end up there. They were supposed to be "down" this season, yet here they are in an NFL-record ninth Super Bowl (the seventh for Bradicheck).
We'll probably see a close one. For the Patriots, a Super Bowl blowout is four points. But, unless they're playing the Giants, New England always manages to come up with big play (or plays) it needs at the end. Take two years ago, when Dan Quinn was on the Seahawks sideline for the worst play call in Super Bowl history, which sealed the Patriots' last championship. I think Atlanta has a chance, and I wouldn't consider it as much of a surprise as some others if they did manage to win it. But you know Belichick has something up his sleeve that no one has ever seen before. And you know some unsung Patriot is going to emerge as their latest Super Bowl hero. I want Atlanta to win (this is the first time in my life I've ever rooted for the Atlanta Falcons), for a number of reasons, but I think the Patriots will. 27-24.
Last Week: 1-1
Postseason: 5-5
Overall: 172-92-2
Saturday, February 4, 2017
Pro Football Hall of Fame Class of 2017
Predicting who's going to make the Pro Football Hall of Fame each year is a very inexact science. Unlike baseball, which is very straightforward and you have a pretty good idea based on who the new candidates are and prior vote totals for carryovers, the vote for the Football Hall of Fame is very subjective. It's 40 guys who are all going to go into it with their obvious preferences and are just trying to get everyone else in the room to agree. I'm actually pretty proud of myself for getting three of the five right last year.
With that being said, though, there are some obvious trends when it comes to Pro Football Hall of Fame voting that make these calls a little bit easier. For example, they almost always vote for an offensive lineman (perhaps as some sort of overcorrection because offensive lineman don't have stats and get very little recognition). Likewise, at least one first-year candidate is usually selected to "headline" the class. And the senior/contributor candidates are virtually guaranteed selection, as are the five that make it to the final round of voting. (I can't even think of the last time they didn't vote in the maximum number of finalists.)
Using that criteria, as well as my own personal preference, here are the five Modern Era finalists that would get my vote. Keep in mind, I have no illusions of this being the final list. Who'll actually make it is anybody's guess. The Pro Football Hall of Fame vote usually contains a surprise or two, and I don't think this year will be any different.
LaDainian Tomlinson, Running Back (2001-09 Chargers, 2010-11 Jets): There isn't a single person who doesn't think LDT (there's only one LT, and he played linebacker for the Giants) will be elected this year. And you can understand why. He's easily the best of the first-year eligible candidates, and he's one of the best dual-threat running backs in NFL history. Too many records and All-Pro selections to count for a guy you knew was a future Hall of Famer while you watched him play for 11 years. It'll also be nice to see the SAN DIEGO Chargers have one of their all-time greats honored in Canton even as the team reluctantly moves up the California coast.
Kurt Warner, Quarterback (1998-2003 Rams, 2004 Giants, 2005-09 Cardinals): He's been biding his time for the last couple years, but I think Kurt Warner's wait will finally end. I can see why they made him wait for Brett Favre. But with Favre now forever residing in Canton, Warner becomes the best quarterback on the ballot until Peyton Manning's guaranteed first-ballot election. He isn't remotely in Favre's league, but his career was still Hall of Fame worthy. Warner was the ringleader of the Greatest Show on Turf, taking a Rams team that was irrelevant before and since to two Super Bowls, winning one. Then, after keeping the seat warm for Eli Manning in New York, he took another moribund franchise--the Cardinals--and took them to their first Super Bowl.
Joe Jacoby, Tackle (1981-93 Redskins): Joe Jacoby's been waiting long enough. He deserves to be this year's offensive lineman. How many offensive lines in NFL history were so good that they got a nickname? Can you think of any others besides the Hogs? So why is Russ Grimm the only member of the Hogs in the Hall of Fame? Joe Jacoby is one of the few Redskins that was on all three of their Super Bowl winners, and he's a big reason why they won three titles. I'm sure Kevin Mawae's and Alan Faneca's time will come. Theirs just shouldn't come before Joe Jacoby's.
John Lynch, Safety (1993-2003 Buccaneers, 2004-07 Broncos): Speaking of guys who've been waiting long enough, Jacoby and Lynch were the two that I missed on last year, so it's only natural I've got both of them in my class again. The 49ers' new GM's candidacy will either be helped or hurt by Brian Dawkins also appearing on the ballot. Most people (myself included) would agree that Dawkins was the better safety. So was Ed Reed for that matter. But if Dawkins isn't a first-ballot guy (which I don't think he is), do you continue to make Lynch wait for him to get his own bust in Canton? That doesn't seem right when the gap between them really isn't all that great. The voters seem to feel the same way. All indications are that they're leaning towards voting Lynch in.
Jason Taylor, Defensive End (1997-2007 Dolphins, 2008 Redskins, 2009 Dolphins, 2010 Jets, 2011 Dolphins): The fifth selection was the toughest. This could very easily have gone to Don Coryell. But through process of elimination, I knocked out the remaining offensive linemen and defensive backs, and they've elected so many wide receivers recently that without a standout in this year's group, I think they lean towards the defense, which is how I arrive at Jason Taylor. And I'd be totally fine with it if he got in. A former Defensive Player of the Year and three-time All-Pro, he was probably the best pass rusher of his day not named Strahan.
As for contributor candidates Jerry Jones and Paul Tagliabue, I have no problem with either one. In fact, I think they both should be in the Hall of Fame. Jones turned the Cowboys back into winners almost immediately after buying the franchise, and he's become one of the most influential owners on the business side of the league. And let's not forget his billion-dollar football palace.
Tagliabue, meanwhile, had the unenviable task of succeeding Pete Rozelle, and he did it brilliantly. He was Commissioner for 17 years, during which time the NFL became America's most popular sport. Tagliabue oversaw the expansion to 32 teams and there was labor peace throughout his tenure. The contributor category was created a couple years ago to honor guys like Tagliabue who had a hard time getting in when they were going against the players. Now that he's finally reached the final round, it'll be a shock if he doesn't get elected.
Lastly, we have senior candidate Kenny Easley. This name is not a familiar one, and he certainly doesn't scream out "Hall of Famer." That might be because he played only seven years. But those seven years were pretty freakin' good, and earned him a place on the 1980s All-Decade Team. I'm also somewhat disturbed by the fact that a guy whose entire career spanned from 1981-87 is considered a "senior." The next thing I know, guys who retired in the 90s will be considered "seniors." That'll really make me feel old!
Anyway, that's my list. Other than the three senior/contributor finalists, Tomlinson is the only player I'd consider to be a lock. Although, I think things do look good for Lynch and Warner.
With that being said, though, there are some obvious trends when it comes to Pro Football Hall of Fame voting that make these calls a little bit easier. For example, they almost always vote for an offensive lineman (perhaps as some sort of overcorrection because offensive lineman don't have stats and get very little recognition). Likewise, at least one first-year candidate is usually selected to "headline" the class. And the senior/contributor candidates are virtually guaranteed selection, as are the five that make it to the final round of voting. (I can't even think of the last time they didn't vote in the maximum number of finalists.)
Using that criteria, as well as my own personal preference, here are the five Modern Era finalists that would get my vote. Keep in mind, I have no illusions of this being the final list. Who'll actually make it is anybody's guess. The Pro Football Hall of Fame vote usually contains a surprise or two, and I don't think this year will be any different.
LaDainian Tomlinson, Running Back (2001-09 Chargers, 2010-11 Jets): There isn't a single person who doesn't think LDT (there's only one LT, and he played linebacker for the Giants) will be elected this year. And you can understand why. He's easily the best of the first-year eligible candidates, and he's one of the best dual-threat running backs in NFL history. Too many records and All-Pro selections to count for a guy you knew was a future Hall of Famer while you watched him play for 11 years. It'll also be nice to see the SAN DIEGO Chargers have one of their all-time greats honored in Canton even as the team reluctantly moves up the California coast.
Kurt Warner, Quarterback (1998-2003 Rams, 2004 Giants, 2005-09 Cardinals): He's been biding his time for the last couple years, but I think Kurt Warner's wait will finally end. I can see why they made him wait for Brett Favre. But with Favre now forever residing in Canton, Warner becomes the best quarterback on the ballot until Peyton Manning's guaranteed first-ballot election. He isn't remotely in Favre's league, but his career was still Hall of Fame worthy. Warner was the ringleader of the Greatest Show on Turf, taking a Rams team that was irrelevant before and since to two Super Bowls, winning one. Then, after keeping the seat warm for Eli Manning in New York, he took another moribund franchise--the Cardinals--and took them to their first Super Bowl.
Joe Jacoby, Tackle (1981-93 Redskins): Joe Jacoby's been waiting long enough. He deserves to be this year's offensive lineman. How many offensive lines in NFL history were so good that they got a nickname? Can you think of any others besides the Hogs? So why is Russ Grimm the only member of the Hogs in the Hall of Fame? Joe Jacoby is one of the few Redskins that was on all three of their Super Bowl winners, and he's a big reason why they won three titles. I'm sure Kevin Mawae's and Alan Faneca's time will come. Theirs just shouldn't come before Joe Jacoby's.
John Lynch, Safety (1993-2003 Buccaneers, 2004-07 Broncos): Speaking of guys who've been waiting long enough, Jacoby and Lynch were the two that I missed on last year, so it's only natural I've got both of them in my class again. The 49ers' new GM's candidacy will either be helped or hurt by Brian Dawkins also appearing on the ballot. Most people (myself included) would agree that Dawkins was the better safety. So was Ed Reed for that matter. But if Dawkins isn't a first-ballot guy (which I don't think he is), do you continue to make Lynch wait for him to get his own bust in Canton? That doesn't seem right when the gap between them really isn't all that great. The voters seem to feel the same way. All indications are that they're leaning towards voting Lynch in.
Jason Taylor, Defensive End (1997-2007 Dolphins, 2008 Redskins, 2009 Dolphins, 2010 Jets, 2011 Dolphins): The fifth selection was the toughest. This could very easily have gone to Don Coryell. But through process of elimination, I knocked out the remaining offensive linemen and defensive backs, and they've elected so many wide receivers recently that without a standout in this year's group, I think they lean towards the defense, which is how I arrive at Jason Taylor. And I'd be totally fine with it if he got in. A former Defensive Player of the Year and three-time All-Pro, he was probably the best pass rusher of his day not named Strahan.
As for contributor candidates Jerry Jones and Paul Tagliabue, I have no problem with either one. In fact, I think they both should be in the Hall of Fame. Jones turned the Cowboys back into winners almost immediately after buying the franchise, and he's become one of the most influential owners on the business side of the league. And let's not forget his billion-dollar football palace.
Tagliabue, meanwhile, had the unenviable task of succeeding Pete Rozelle, and he did it brilliantly. He was Commissioner for 17 years, during which time the NFL became America's most popular sport. Tagliabue oversaw the expansion to 32 teams and there was labor peace throughout his tenure. The contributor category was created a couple years ago to honor guys like Tagliabue who had a hard time getting in when they were going against the players. Now that he's finally reached the final round, it'll be a shock if he doesn't get elected.
Lastly, we have senior candidate Kenny Easley. This name is not a familiar one, and he certainly doesn't scream out "Hall of Famer." That might be because he played only seven years. But those seven years were pretty freakin' good, and earned him a place on the 1980s All-Decade Team. I'm also somewhat disturbed by the fact that a guy whose entire career spanned from 1981-87 is considered a "senior." The next thing I know, guys who retired in the 90s will be considered "seniors." That'll really make me feel old!
Anyway, that's my list. Other than the three senior/contributor finalists, Tomlinson is the only player I'd consider to be a lock. Although, I think things do look good for Lynch and Warner.
Friday, February 3, 2017
NFL Awards
When they first created the NFL Honors as a night-before-the-Super Bowl made-for-TV event, I was a little skeptical. I really didn't know what to make of it at first. But, as we head into year No. 6 of the NFL Honors show, it's pretty clear that it isn't going anywhere. And, I must admit, I do like the idea of all the awards being handed out in the same place at the same time like they do in hockey. It makes sense, too, since everyone's already at the Super Bowl and the NFL is the only thing people are thinking about that weekend.
As we come up on the 2016-17 edition of the NFL Honors, some of the awards that will be handed out seem fairly obvious. Meanwhile, there's a great amount of anticipation over who's going to win MVP, among others, as well as who'll be in the Hall of Fame class. More on the Hall of Fame coming up in my next post, but today, I want to take a look at the eight biggest awards that will be handed out on Saturday night and my winners for each.
MVP: Matt Ryan, Falcons-I've already stated my case as to why Matty Ice deserves to be MVP over the other Super Bowl quarterback, so there's not really a need to rehash it here. He was the ringleader of the NFL's best offense, and Atlanta wouldn't be in the Super Bowl if not for Ryan. His numbers warranted him a First Team All-Pro selection. His leadership got the Falcons a first-round bye (and Super Bowl appearance). And he did it from Week 1 to Week 17, which is more than I can say for some other quarterbacks in the conversation. In my mind, though, this race isn't even close. It's Matt Ryan by a mile.
Coach of the Year: Jason Garrett, Cowboys-Dallas went 4-12 last year, then Tony Romo got hurt in the preseason. All the Cowboys did after all that was go on a franchise-record winning streak and finish with the best record in the NFC. With a rookie quarterback and rookie running back. If Jason Garrett wasn't the Coach of the Year this season, why do they even have the award?
Offensive Player: David Johnson, Cardinals-It happens every once in a while, but I'm not really a fan of MVP and Offensive Player of the Year going to two different people. How can you be the best offensive player in the league, but not the most valuable? Yet here I am contradicting myself and giving my Offensive Player of the Year to someone other than MVP Matt Ryan. You can't ignore the absolutely ridiculous numbers David Johnson put up this season, though. He's not the reason the Cardinals sucked.
Defensive Player: Khalil Mack, Raiders-J.J. Watt was hurt for most of the season, so we know he's not going to win this award for the third straight year. Even if Watt had been healthy, he would've had a tough time keeping up Khalil Mack in this race. Mack was the clubhouse leader all season, and you could argue that, after Derek Carr, he's the biggest reason the Raiders returned to the playoffs. The field is stacked (Von Miller, Vic Beasley), but I think Mack stands just a bit above.
Offensive Rookie: Ezekiel Elliott, Cowboys-For all the talk midway through the season that Elliott and Dak Prescott might end up splitting votes, I think it's clear which one was more instrumental in the Cowboys' success. A rookie leads the NFL in rushing while serving as the primary back for the team with the best record. That doesn't happen every year. Ezekiel Elliott had a special season. He was clearly the best rookie in football.
Defensive Rookie: Joey Bosa, Chargers-Unlike Offensive Rookie, there's no runaway winner on the defensive side of the ball. In fact, this is probably the hardest of the eight awards to pick simply because there's no clear-cut favorite. But I'm going with Joey Bosa of the Chargers. He only played in 12 games, but that was enough to establish his status as one of the best young pass rushers in the game. He had nearly a sack a game for a very good Chargers defense playing in an AFC West that featured two playoff teams and the defending Super Bowl champions.
Comeback Player: Cameron Wake, Dolphins-No offense to Wake or any of the other top Comeback Player of the Year candidates, but none of their stories will be able to compare with last year's winner, Eric Berry, overcoming cancer to return to the NFL. There are plenty of players who were injured or ineffective in 2015 that returned and made major impacts in 2016. So why Wake? Because a 34-year-old coming off a torn Achilles shouldn't have 11.5 sacks for a playoff team!
Man of the Year: Larry Fitzgerald, Cardinals-Larry Fitzgerald, Eli Manning and Greg Olsen are the three finalists and, like most years, they're all deserving. But I'm going with Fitzgerald simply because of the volume by which he gives back to the Arizona community that has embraced him ever since the Cardinals drafted him in 2004. The future Hall of Famer is arguably the greatest player in Cardinals history, and he's donated over $1 million throughout his career to a number of Phoenix-area charities. He truly exemplifies everything the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award is all about.
Without question, MVP is the tightest race of them all, and the winner of that award likely won't be there to accept it (he'll be a little busy). Don't be surprised if they both take an MVP trophy home this weekend, though. Although, I think they'd both prefer to be MVP after a win on Sunday than on Saturday.
As we come up on the 2016-17 edition of the NFL Honors, some of the awards that will be handed out seem fairly obvious. Meanwhile, there's a great amount of anticipation over who's going to win MVP, among others, as well as who'll be in the Hall of Fame class. More on the Hall of Fame coming up in my next post, but today, I want to take a look at the eight biggest awards that will be handed out on Saturday night and my winners for each.
MVP: Matt Ryan, Falcons-I've already stated my case as to why Matty Ice deserves to be MVP over the other Super Bowl quarterback, so there's not really a need to rehash it here. He was the ringleader of the NFL's best offense, and Atlanta wouldn't be in the Super Bowl if not for Ryan. His numbers warranted him a First Team All-Pro selection. His leadership got the Falcons a first-round bye (and Super Bowl appearance). And he did it from Week 1 to Week 17, which is more than I can say for some other quarterbacks in the conversation. In my mind, though, this race isn't even close. It's Matt Ryan by a mile.
Coach of the Year: Jason Garrett, Cowboys-Dallas went 4-12 last year, then Tony Romo got hurt in the preseason. All the Cowboys did after all that was go on a franchise-record winning streak and finish with the best record in the NFC. With a rookie quarterback and rookie running back. If Jason Garrett wasn't the Coach of the Year this season, why do they even have the award?
Offensive Player: David Johnson, Cardinals-It happens every once in a while, but I'm not really a fan of MVP and Offensive Player of the Year going to two different people. How can you be the best offensive player in the league, but not the most valuable? Yet here I am contradicting myself and giving my Offensive Player of the Year to someone other than MVP Matt Ryan. You can't ignore the absolutely ridiculous numbers David Johnson put up this season, though. He's not the reason the Cardinals sucked.
Defensive Player: Khalil Mack, Raiders-J.J. Watt was hurt for most of the season, so we know he's not going to win this award for the third straight year. Even if Watt had been healthy, he would've had a tough time keeping up Khalil Mack in this race. Mack was the clubhouse leader all season, and you could argue that, after Derek Carr, he's the biggest reason the Raiders returned to the playoffs. The field is stacked (Von Miller, Vic Beasley), but I think Mack stands just a bit above.
Offensive Rookie: Ezekiel Elliott, Cowboys-For all the talk midway through the season that Elliott and Dak Prescott might end up splitting votes, I think it's clear which one was more instrumental in the Cowboys' success. A rookie leads the NFL in rushing while serving as the primary back for the team with the best record. That doesn't happen every year. Ezekiel Elliott had a special season. He was clearly the best rookie in football.
Defensive Rookie: Joey Bosa, Chargers-Unlike Offensive Rookie, there's no runaway winner on the defensive side of the ball. In fact, this is probably the hardest of the eight awards to pick simply because there's no clear-cut favorite. But I'm going with Joey Bosa of the Chargers. He only played in 12 games, but that was enough to establish his status as one of the best young pass rushers in the game. He had nearly a sack a game for a very good Chargers defense playing in an AFC West that featured two playoff teams and the defending Super Bowl champions.
Comeback Player: Cameron Wake, Dolphins-No offense to Wake or any of the other top Comeback Player of the Year candidates, but none of their stories will be able to compare with last year's winner, Eric Berry, overcoming cancer to return to the NFL. There are plenty of players who were injured or ineffective in 2015 that returned and made major impacts in 2016. So why Wake? Because a 34-year-old coming off a torn Achilles shouldn't have 11.5 sacks for a playoff team!
Man of the Year: Larry Fitzgerald, Cardinals-Larry Fitzgerald, Eli Manning and Greg Olsen are the three finalists and, like most years, they're all deserving. But I'm going with Fitzgerald simply because of the volume by which he gives back to the Arizona community that has embraced him ever since the Cardinals drafted him in 2004. The future Hall of Famer is arguably the greatest player in Cardinals history, and he's donated over $1 million throughout his career to a number of Phoenix-area charities. He truly exemplifies everything the Walter Payton NFL Man of the Year Award is all about.
Without question, MVP is the tightest race of them all, and the winner of that award likely won't be there to accept it (he'll be a little busy). Don't be surprised if they both take an MVP trophy home this weekend, though. Although, I think they'd both prefer to be MVP after a win on Sunday than on Saturday.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)