The NBA and its fans got exactly what they wanted. They got Cavs-Warriors III. They got LeBron vs. Curry. As a result, they'll probably get bonkers ratings for the NBA Finals, which they'll likely use to promote the "health" of the game and display how "great" the NBA is. And all of that will be an illusion. Because the NBA has a pretty serious problem that it conveniently turns a blind eye to.
Now, I'm not here to criticize the NBA or its fans. To each their own. If you're a fan of the NBA, more power to you. But even the biggest NBA fan in the world can't deny that the league definitely has a problem on its hands. And it's a problem that's pretty obvious to everyone.
So, what is this problem you ask? The NBA is so uncompetitive it's beyond boring. The Warriors, who went 73-9 during the regular season last year, are 12-0 in this year's playoffs. They've won those 12 games by an average of 16.3 points. The Cavs have actually lost a game (and they acted like the world was over when they did). Their average margin of victory in their other 12 games was 14.2 points, although that's a little skewed since they actually played four reasonably close games against Indiana (1, 6, 5, 4) while also notching 44- and 33-point routs against Boston in the Eastern Conference Finals.
It was in the Conference Finals that the lack of competition in the NBA was really exposed. Boston was the higher seed in the East, but it's not like that actually mattered. Other than the one game the Celtics won, Cleveland was never even challenged. The Western Conference Finals were even more of a joke. San Antonio was supposed to be the "only team" capable of beating Golden State. Instead, after a 113-111 loss in Game 1, they were embarrassed by 36 in Game 2, then lost their two home games by 12 and 14.
These were supposedly the second-best teams in each conference, yet they were absolutely no match for either Cleveland or Golden State. Which makes you wonder why the NBA even bothered with the regular season and first three rounds of the playoffs only to end up with the inevitable matchup between the same two teams that have played in the last two Finals.
This isn't the first time we've seen a dominant run by a team. The Yankees have had a few stretches where they won a few World Series in a row, and their have been plenty of Stanley Cup dynasties from the Canadiens to the Islanders to the Oilers. And we've of course been witnessing the Bradicheck Patriots roll through the NFL for the last 15 years.
Except in each of those cases, it was never the same two teams dominating the league. And that's the biggest difference. There was at least some level of suspense that came with the regular season in those cases, even if was just to see who was going to lose to that dynasty in the finals.
And in the other three leagues, there's at least the possibility of the top team getting upset. Prior to last year's Cubs, when was the last time the best team in baseball won the World Series? The Packers won the Super Bowl as a 6-seed a few years ago. In the NHL, you see it all the time. In fact, the Predators were seeded 16th of the 16 playoff teams this season. But when was the last time you saw an upset in the NBA Playoffs? Exactly.
In the NBA right now, there are 28 teams that basically have no chance. This in a league with a salary cap. A salary cap, which is something that in every other league is designed to level the playing field by preventing teams from stockpiling the best talent. In the NBA, the "salary cap" is just the opposite. Somehow, despite the existence of a "salary cap," it was possible for LeBron to make his own fantasy team in Miami and the Warriors to somehow have enough money to sign Kevin Durant. The rich continue to get richer. Everybody else has no chance.
I think it's an NBA rule that LeBron James plays in the Finals. Because this isn't just his seventh straight Finals appearance, it's the seventh straight time that his team reached the Finals with very little effort. Can you seriously tell me that the entire Eastern Conference bowing down to King James for the better part of a decade is good for the game? Especially now that the Western Conference teams are doing the same thing with Steph Curry?
Of course, like I said earlier, the NBA likely doesn't view this as a problem. People still love LeBron and they still love Curry and they still love the dominance of the Cavs and Warriors. And I hope they do get a competitive Finals. I also hope this year is an aberration and there will be more than two teams in the NBA next season. Because right now, the Cavs and Warriors might as well be the UConn women. Their games are that non-competitive.
Unless you're a fan of one of them, watching the same two teams bludgeon everyone else year after year isn't entertaining. It's boring. And boring is a problem. Whether the NBA wants to admit it or not.
Wednesday, May 31, 2017
Monday, May 29, 2017
Predators vs. Penguins
Most people are picking the Penguins in the Stanley Cup Final. I don't blame them. It's the logical pick. Pittsburgh is the defending champions, had the second-most points in the entire league during the regular season, and boasts the best player on the planet. The Penguins are understandably the favorites against Nashville as they look for their third Cup of the Crosby/Malkin Era.
But I'm a believer in the Predators. I don't just think Nashville can win the Cup. I think the Predators will. They dispatched the top two teams in the West, including a sweep of Chicago, and they've got the defense to stop the Penguins' offense. More importantly, playing on the road doesn't phase them at all. As the 16th-best of the 16 playoff teams, they knew there were gonna have to win on the road to keep playing, and so far they've done it. (We also saw the Kings win the Cup as an 8-seed a few years ago.)
For the Predators to win, they really just need to keep doing what they've been doing. Their defense has been incredible, and Pekka Rinne is playing out of his mind. And you can't really argue that the Penguins have a better offense than the teams Nashville has faced already. Because the Predators played the Blackhawks and Ducks! So, their offense has been shutting down some pretty good offensive teams.
They haven't been all defense, either. The Predators have scored just enough to not have to rely strictly on Rinne. Consider: outside of the six-goal clincher against Anaheim, Nashville went 10 straight games scoring three goals or fewer, and went 6-4. If they get three and Rinne keeps playing at the same level he was at in the first three rounds, that should be enough, And, no offense to Craig Anderson, but he's not Pekka Rinne.
One of the great things about Nashville's defense is that they have enough horses to stick with multiple scorers. Kane and Toews did nothing. Getzlaf and Perry did nothing. Sure, Pittsburgh's more than just Crosby and Malkin. They'll have to shut down the likes of Phil Kessel, as well. But Nashville's formula has worked so far, and I don't see them changing it. And I think the reason it's worked is because they don't have to rely on just one defensive stopper, which is essentially how Ottawa tried to beat Pittsburgh.
I also wonder how much the rest factor is going to come into play. The Penguins have played 14 games in the last two rounds. The Predators had one of only two sweeps in the entire playoffs, which gave them a six-day break before the St. Louis series. Then they got five days between the Blues and Ducks (while Anaheim got one). Now they head into the Final with a full week of rest, while the Penguins went to double overtime on Thursday night. Everyone's tired at this time of year. Nashville's had all that extra time off. That can only be a good thing.
It's obvious who's got the goalie advantage, too. Pekka Rinne is probably the leading candidate for the Conn Smythe Trophy right now. He's the anchor of Nashville's team. The Penguins have long been successful despite their goalie(s). They started the playoffs with Marc-Andre Fleury, until he had a very Fleury-like performance in Game 3 against the Senators and was replaced by Matt Murray. This is a typical scenario for the Penguins, who usually find a way to overcome their goaltending issues.
Of course, the Penguins know that while goaltending might be their Achilles Heel, they generally need it to just be good enough. Especially with the quality of their offense. It took that offense a little while to come around, but they finally turned the corner with that 7-0 win in Game 5 of the Senators series.
Although, some of their early struggles against Ottawa were due to the Senators' style of play, which is basically lulling you to sleep. And that strategy almost worked. Nashville 's strategy has been similar to Ottawa's. Except, in addition to being an overall better team than the Senators, the Predators have the offense to back up their outstanding defense. The defense that they used to shut down the top two teams in the Western Conference.
As I've said through each successive round of the playoffs, Nashville was a very popular Stanley Cup pick in the preseason. The Predators have shown why over the last six weeks. They didn't just get lucky. They're a good team that got hot at just the right time. If they stay hot for the next two weeks, the Predators might very well be skating the Cup around their home ice at Bridgestone Arena. Because I think the team that's 5-3 on the road in the playoffs will get to clinch it at home in Game 6.
But I'm a believer in the Predators. I don't just think Nashville can win the Cup. I think the Predators will. They dispatched the top two teams in the West, including a sweep of Chicago, and they've got the defense to stop the Penguins' offense. More importantly, playing on the road doesn't phase them at all. As the 16th-best of the 16 playoff teams, they knew there were gonna have to win on the road to keep playing, and so far they've done it. (We also saw the Kings win the Cup as an 8-seed a few years ago.)
For the Predators to win, they really just need to keep doing what they've been doing. Their defense has been incredible, and Pekka Rinne is playing out of his mind. And you can't really argue that the Penguins have a better offense than the teams Nashville has faced already. Because the Predators played the Blackhawks and Ducks! So, their offense has been shutting down some pretty good offensive teams.
They haven't been all defense, either. The Predators have scored just enough to not have to rely strictly on Rinne. Consider: outside of the six-goal clincher against Anaheim, Nashville went 10 straight games scoring three goals or fewer, and went 6-4. If they get three and Rinne keeps playing at the same level he was at in the first three rounds, that should be enough, And, no offense to Craig Anderson, but he's not Pekka Rinne.
One of the great things about Nashville's defense is that they have enough horses to stick with multiple scorers. Kane and Toews did nothing. Getzlaf and Perry did nothing. Sure, Pittsburgh's more than just Crosby and Malkin. They'll have to shut down the likes of Phil Kessel, as well. But Nashville's formula has worked so far, and I don't see them changing it. And I think the reason it's worked is because they don't have to rely on just one defensive stopper, which is essentially how Ottawa tried to beat Pittsburgh.
I also wonder how much the rest factor is going to come into play. The Penguins have played 14 games in the last two rounds. The Predators had one of only two sweeps in the entire playoffs, which gave them a six-day break before the St. Louis series. Then they got five days between the Blues and Ducks (while Anaheim got one). Now they head into the Final with a full week of rest, while the Penguins went to double overtime on Thursday night. Everyone's tired at this time of year. Nashville's had all that extra time off. That can only be a good thing.
It's obvious who's got the goalie advantage, too. Pekka Rinne is probably the leading candidate for the Conn Smythe Trophy right now. He's the anchor of Nashville's team. The Penguins have long been successful despite their goalie(s). They started the playoffs with Marc-Andre Fleury, until he had a very Fleury-like performance in Game 3 against the Senators and was replaced by Matt Murray. This is a typical scenario for the Penguins, who usually find a way to overcome their goaltending issues.
Of course, the Penguins know that while goaltending might be their Achilles Heel, they generally need it to just be good enough. Especially with the quality of their offense. It took that offense a little while to come around, but they finally turned the corner with that 7-0 win in Game 5 of the Senators series.
Although, some of their early struggles against Ottawa were due to the Senators' style of play, which is basically lulling you to sleep. And that strategy almost worked. Nashville 's strategy has been similar to Ottawa's. Except, in addition to being an overall better team than the Senators, the Predators have the offense to back up their outstanding defense. The defense that they used to shut down the top two teams in the Western Conference.
As I've said through each successive round of the playoffs, Nashville was a very popular Stanley Cup pick in the preseason. The Predators have shown why over the last six weeks. They didn't just get lucky. They're a good team that got hot at just the right time. If they stay hot for the next two weeks, the Predators might very well be skating the Cup around their home ice at Bridgestone Arena. Because I think the team that's 5-3 on the road in the playoffs will get to clinch it at home in Game 6.
Sunday, May 28, 2017
It's Time For Indy
With all of the centennial celebrations now over, there was significantly less hype heading into this year's Indy 500 than there has been in a little while. It even extended to qualifying. Only 33 cars entered, so qualifying amounted to little more than setting the starting positions. Although, it did feature that scary accident where Sebastian Bourdais broke his hip and pelvis.
But there's still something about Indy that just gives you that rush. They call it the "Greatest Spectacle In Racing" for a reason. And it really is the highlight of what always is the greatest DAY in racing. It starts in Monaco with one of the biggest Formula 1 races and ends at Charlotte with the Coca-Cola 600. All three are staples of Memorial Day Weekend (even though Memorial Day has absolutely no significance in Monaco), but Indy's the one that I always make a point to watch every year.
Speaking of the race at Monaco, there's a full-time F1 driver skipping that race so he can race at the Brickyard instead. And Fernando Alonso ended up qualifying fifth. He's not a "rookie" in the same sense Alexander Rossi was last year, but Alonso making it back-to-back rookie winners doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.
Although, you can't count out Rossi turning the same trick as Helio Castroneves and going 2-for-2 in his first two trips to Indy, either. His win last year was a surprise. To see him defend wouldn't be. He's starting third on the outside of a front row that includes pole-sitter Scott Dixon, who looked really good in qualifying, and Ed Carpenter, who somehow always ends up with a front-row starting position. You'd have to think one of these years he'll turn his great solo runs in qualifying/practice into a great Indy 500. That would be really cool. He's an Indianapolis native.
Rossi and Dixon are two of the seven former winners in the race, and they seem to be in the best position to put their face on the Borg-Warner Trophy for a second time. Tony Kanaan did make it into the "Fast Nine," though, and we all know how much success he's had at Indy throughout his career. Ryan Hunter-Reay will be right behind him, but I think Juan Pablo Montoya is starting too far back to be a factor. Likewise, I'm not sure this is the year Helio becomes the fourth four-time winner. Buddy Lazier is the seventh former winner, but he's simply just another driver in the race at this point in his career.
For some reason, I don't think we're going to see a former winner make his way to Victory Lane again. There are so many good drivers that have come close recently, and I think one of them is poised for a breakthrough. Sorry, Andretti faithful, I don't think Marco's going to be that guy. They say about Indy that "the track decides who wins," and she's made it perfectly clear time and again that she doesn't want an Andretti to win.
J.R Hildebrand knows all about that whole "the track decides who wins" thing. He had the lead around the final turn at his 2011 debut, only to hit the wall and finish second behind the late Dan Wheldon. Carlos Munoz probably feels the same way. He's finished second twice, including last year, when Rossi had just enough gas left to cross the line first.
The driver I'm picking, though, is Will Power. He's the best driver in the field that's yet to win Indy, although he did take second behind Montoya two years ago. Power's remarkably consistent. He's starting ninth, which is actually his worst position since 2009, when he also started ninth. Oh, and Power's placed in the top 10 in each of the last three years (and five times in his career). The smart money's on Dixon, the pole-sitter and IndyCar Series points leader. But I like Power, who already has a win at Indianapolis this month to his credit (on the road course inside the oval).
A total of 70 different drivers took the checkered flag over the first 100 runnings of the Indianapolis 500. Will we see the 71st as Indy begins it second century? If we do, will Power be that guy? Or will it be someone else? Or will one of the seven former winners in the race make it two? Or three (Montoya)? Or four (Helio)?
One thing we do know for certain. The track is going to decide. And she's not going to make it easy. The Bourdais injury was a reminder of that. Hopefully Race Day won't be as eventful. We'll take competitive, though. Somebody's gonna earn it. Which is the way it should be.
But there's still something about Indy that just gives you that rush. They call it the "Greatest Spectacle In Racing" for a reason. And it really is the highlight of what always is the greatest DAY in racing. It starts in Monaco with one of the biggest Formula 1 races and ends at Charlotte with the Coca-Cola 600. All three are staples of Memorial Day Weekend (even though Memorial Day has absolutely no significance in Monaco), but Indy's the one that I always make a point to watch every year.
Speaking of the race at Monaco, there's a full-time F1 driver skipping that race so he can race at the Brickyard instead. And Fernando Alonso ended up qualifying fifth. He's not a "rookie" in the same sense Alexander Rossi was last year, but Alonso making it back-to-back rookie winners doesn't seem out of the realm of possibility.
Although, you can't count out Rossi turning the same trick as Helio Castroneves and going 2-for-2 in his first two trips to Indy, either. His win last year was a surprise. To see him defend wouldn't be. He's starting third on the outside of a front row that includes pole-sitter Scott Dixon, who looked really good in qualifying, and Ed Carpenter, who somehow always ends up with a front-row starting position. You'd have to think one of these years he'll turn his great solo runs in qualifying/practice into a great Indy 500. That would be really cool. He's an Indianapolis native.
Rossi and Dixon are two of the seven former winners in the race, and they seem to be in the best position to put their face on the Borg-Warner Trophy for a second time. Tony Kanaan did make it into the "Fast Nine," though, and we all know how much success he's had at Indy throughout his career. Ryan Hunter-Reay will be right behind him, but I think Juan Pablo Montoya is starting too far back to be a factor. Likewise, I'm not sure this is the year Helio becomes the fourth four-time winner. Buddy Lazier is the seventh former winner, but he's simply just another driver in the race at this point in his career.
For some reason, I don't think we're going to see a former winner make his way to Victory Lane again. There are so many good drivers that have come close recently, and I think one of them is poised for a breakthrough. Sorry, Andretti faithful, I don't think Marco's going to be that guy. They say about Indy that "the track decides who wins," and she's made it perfectly clear time and again that she doesn't want an Andretti to win.
J.R Hildebrand knows all about that whole "the track decides who wins" thing. He had the lead around the final turn at his 2011 debut, only to hit the wall and finish second behind the late Dan Wheldon. Carlos Munoz probably feels the same way. He's finished second twice, including last year, when Rossi had just enough gas left to cross the line first.
The driver I'm picking, though, is Will Power. He's the best driver in the field that's yet to win Indy, although he did take second behind Montoya two years ago. Power's remarkably consistent. He's starting ninth, which is actually his worst position since 2009, when he also started ninth. Oh, and Power's placed in the top 10 in each of the last three years (and five times in his career). The smart money's on Dixon, the pole-sitter and IndyCar Series points leader. But I like Power, who already has a win at Indianapolis this month to his credit (on the road course inside the oval).
A total of 70 different drivers took the checkered flag over the first 100 runnings of the Indianapolis 500. Will we see the 71st as Indy begins it second century? If we do, will Power be that guy? Or will it be someone else? Or will one of the seven former winners in the race make it two? Or three (Montoya)? Or four (Helio)?
One thing we do know for certain. The track is going to decide. And she's not going to make it easy. The Bourdais injury was a reminder of that. Hopefully Race Day won't be as eventful. We'll take competitive, though. Somebody's gonna earn it. Which is the way it should be.
Saturday, May 27, 2017
Can Anybody Beat Nadal?
Rafael Nadal used to win the French Open every year. It was more automatic than LeBron James playing in the NBA Finals (more on that next week). Then Rafa started letting some other people win. Stan Wawrinka was the 2015 champion, and Novak Djokovic completed that incredible Djoker Slam with his victory here last year.
A lot has changed in the last 12 months. Djokovic suffered early exits at Wimbledon and the Australian Open and Nadal looks like the Nadal of old. He's been the best player on tour not named Federer this year, and with Roger opting to sit out the entire clay court season to prepare for Wimbledon, it looks like this is Rafa's tournament to lose. And how important was Roger's win in Australia? That gave him an 18-14 lead over Nadal in career Grand Slam titles. Had Nadal won that match, it would be 17-15, meaning he'd pull within one with his 10th Coupe des Mousquetaires.
I'm not saying a Nadal victory is guaranteed. I'm just saying he enters the tournament as the overwhelming favorite to win the tournament he won nine times in 10 years from 2005-14. Especially because Nadal is once again the clear-cut best player on clay.
So who can beat him? Well, let's start with the two guys that have lifted the trophy more recently than Rafa has. Djokovic finally won the title last year after losing in the previous two finals. He's played for the title in four of the last five years, so he's no stranger to an extended stay in Paris. However, Djokovic has had some puzzling results this year, starting with his third-round loss at the Australian Open. And he wasn't done any favors by drawing Nadal in the semis. The last time they played at the French, Djokovic won a 2015 semifinal, only to run out of gas against Wawrinka in the final.
Don't be surprised if the same thing happens again this year, as you've got Nadal and Djokovic on one side, with Wawrinka and Andy Murray on the other. Murray is ranked No. 1 and made the finals here last year, but this is his toughest Grand Slam. He's got a tough draw before he gets to Wawrinka, too (although Wawrinka could face two of the three seeded French guys back-to-back in the fourth round and quarters).
Should Wawrinka get through Gasquet/Monfils and Tsonga, and I think he will, I give him the edge in that semi, regardless of who he plays. Meanwhile, I see Nadal winning that marquee semifinal against Djokovic. That sets up a Nadal-Wawrinka final, which I see Nadal winning. And if he does, that would mean each of the last five Grand Slam tournaments would've been won by a different member of the Big Five.
On the women's side, there's no Serena, who incredibly won the Australian Open while two months pregnant, and no Maria, who wasn't granted a wild card after returning from her suspension. The two of them spent four years passing the trophy back-and-forth from 2012-15, only to see Serena upset by Garbine Muguruza in last year's final.
With the two biggest names in women's tennis missing, this has to be one of the most wide-open Grand Slam tournaments in recent memory. I guess Muguruza should be considered the favorite as the defending champion, but there's any number of women who can win this thing. Angelique Kerber is ranked No. 1, but her best result here was a quarterfinal (once, five years ago). That was the only time she's even made the second week at the French. She's lost in the first or second round five times, and she lost in qualifying once, too. I'm not saying Kerber should be counted out, though. She's No. 1 for a reason, after all.
But I'm looking at the bottom half of the draw. Specifically I'm looking at No. 3 seed Simona Halep. She almost won the tournament in 2014, losing 6-4, 6-7, 6-4 to Sharapova in the final. Halep then went on to make the semis of Wimbledon. She lost in the first round at the Australian Open (which has little relevance), but won the big French Open tune-up in Madrid. She looks ready to make a run.
Unfortunately for Halep, her potential quarterfinal opponent is the hottest player on tour--Elina Svitolina. Svitolina has won four tournaments this year, including the Italian Open last week, where she beat Halep in the final. The winner of that quarterfinal is my pick to win it all. As for which one will win the quarter, I'm going with Halep.
This tournament is so wide open, though, that it's got surprise semifinalist, or even surprise finalist, written all over it. Maybe somebody like Lucie Safarova, who wouldn't actually be that big of a surprise since she almost beat Serena in the final two years ago. But Safarova enters the French Open unseeded, so if she does, make a deep run, it'll probably turn some heads.
Meanwhile, other than Halep and Muguruza, most of the top women have no real French Open success to speak of. That's going to make it fun to watch. No result will really be that big of a shock and nobody has any idea who's going to win. I just have a feeling about Halep, though, so she's my pick. And for some reason, I think Dominika Cibulkova will be the other finalist. Don't ask me why. For a change, I expect by prediction for a Grand Slam event to be way off. On the women's side at least. I fully expect to see Rafa win the men's tournament. Again.
A lot has changed in the last 12 months. Djokovic suffered early exits at Wimbledon and the Australian Open and Nadal looks like the Nadal of old. He's been the best player on tour not named Federer this year, and with Roger opting to sit out the entire clay court season to prepare for Wimbledon, it looks like this is Rafa's tournament to lose. And how important was Roger's win in Australia? That gave him an 18-14 lead over Nadal in career Grand Slam titles. Had Nadal won that match, it would be 17-15, meaning he'd pull within one with his 10th Coupe des Mousquetaires.
I'm not saying a Nadal victory is guaranteed. I'm just saying he enters the tournament as the overwhelming favorite to win the tournament he won nine times in 10 years from 2005-14. Especially because Nadal is once again the clear-cut best player on clay.
So who can beat him? Well, let's start with the two guys that have lifted the trophy more recently than Rafa has. Djokovic finally won the title last year after losing in the previous two finals. He's played for the title in four of the last five years, so he's no stranger to an extended stay in Paris. However, Djokovic has had some puzzling results this year, starting with his third-round loss at the Australian Open. And he wasn't done any favors by drawing Nadal in the semis. The last time they played at the French, Djokovic won a 2015 semifinal, only to run out of gas against Wawrinka in the final.
Don't be surprised if the same thing happens again this year, as you've got Nadal and Djokovic on one side, with Wawrinka and Andy Murray on the other. Murray is ranked No. 1 and made the finals here last year, but this is his toughest Grand Slam. He's got a tough draw before he gets to Wawrinka, too (although Wawrinka could face two of the three seeded French guys back-to-back in the fourth round and quarters).
Should Wawrinka get through Gasquet/Monfils and Tsonga, and I think he will, I give him the edge in that semi, regardless of who he plays. Meanwhile, I see Nadal winning that marquee semifinal against Djokovic. That sets up a Nadal-Wawrinka final, which I see Nadal winning. And if he does, that would mean each of the last five Grand Slam tournaments would've been won by a different member of the Big Five.
On the women's side, there's no Serena, who incredibly won the Australian Open while two months pregnant, and no Maria, who wasn't granted a wild card after returning from her suspension. The two of them spent four years passing the trophy back-and-forth from 2012-15, only to see Serena upset by Garbine Muguruza in last year's final.
With the two biggest names in women's tennis missing, this has to be one of the most wide-open Grand Slam tournaments in recent memory. I guess Muguruza should be considered the favorite as the defending champion, but there's any number of women who can win this thing. Angelique Kerber is ranked No. 1, but her best result here was a quarterfinal (once, five years ago). That was the only time she's even made the second week at the French. She's lost in the first or second round five times, and she lost in qualifying once, too. I'm not saying Kerber should be counted out, though. She's No. 1 for a reason, after all.
But I'm looking at the bottom half of the draw. Specifically I'm looking at No. 3 seed Simona Halep. She almost won the tournament in 2014, losing 6-4, 6-7, 6-4 to Sharapova in the final. Halep then went on to make the semis of Wimbledon. She lost in the first round at the Australian Open (which has little relevance), but won the big French Open tune-up in Madrid. She looks ready to make a run.
Unfortunately for Halep, her potential quarterfinal opponent is the hottest player on tour--Elina Svitolina. Svitolina has won four tournaments this year, including the Italian Open last week, where she beat Halep in the final. The winner of that quarterfinal is my pick to win it all. As for which one will win the quarter, I'm going with Halep.
This tournament is so wide open, though, that it's got surprise semifinalist, or even surprise finalist, written all over it. Maybe somebody like Lucie Safarova, who wouldn't actually be that big of a surprise since she almost beat Serena in the final two years ago. But Safarova enters the French Open unseeded, so if she does, make a deep run, it'll probably turn some heads.
Meanwhile, other than Halep and Muguruza, most of the top women have no real French Open success to speak of. That's going to make it fun to watch. No result will really be that big of a shock and nobody has any idea who's going to win. I just have a feeling about Halep, though, so she's my pick. And for some reason, I think Dominika Cibulkova will be the other finalist. Don't ask me why. For a change, I expect by prediction for a Grand Slam event to be way off. On the women's side at least. I fully expect to see Rafa win the men's tournament. Again.
Tuesday, May 23, 2017
Who Goes First: LA or Paris?
It's becoming more and more clear that the IOC wants to award both the 2024 and 2028 Olympics to Los Angeles and Paris (or Paris and Los Angeles) when they vote in September. What's unclear is which city will get which.
They've both insisted that they're only interested in 2024, but IOC Vice President Juan Antonio Samarach, Jr. (the son of the longtime IOC President) has indicated that for the joint-award to work, somebody's got to take the later edition. And he'd like the two cities to agree which one gets 2024 and which one waits until 2028 prior to the vote. That could be where things get complicated.
I've long believed that Paris is the IOC's preferred choice for 2024, for a number of reasons. After two recent failed bids, Paris feels it's finally their turn. Likewise, 2,024 will be 10 years since Sochi, the last Olympics in Europe, and 12 since London, the last Summer Games in Europe. That's way too long for the mostly-European IOC membership. Not to mention the fact that it'll be the 100th anniversary of the last time Paris hosted the Olympics in 1924.
However, the IOC is also weary of once again leaving the USOC out in the cold. The Olympics haven't been in the U.S. since Salt Lake 2002, and the Summer Games haven't been here since Atlanta 1996. That's also the last time any North American city hosted the Summer Olympics. Since then, there have been failed bids from New York and Chicago. Do you really want to reject the first, second AND third most-populous cities in the country whose broadcast rights produce the greatest portion of your revenue?
The IOC is in a very interesting (and unenviable) spot. Both bids are strong. They want them both to host. They know that the "loser" won't come back for 2028, and probably won't bid again for a loooong time. That's why they're trying to figure out a way to make both cities happy, which is where this joint award idea came from. And the joint award makes a lot of sense. As long as they can figure out which city goes first.
While remaining publicly committed to 2024 without talking about 2028, Los Angeles certainly appears to be more receptive to the idea of taking the later Games than Paris does. Paris has listed all kinds of reasons why it can only host in 2024 and flat out rejected 2028. LA hasn't. Since LA's venue plan calls for permanent arenas/stadiums that already do or will exist (the Rams/Chargers stadium), the four-year delay seems like it would be less of a problem in Southern California.
Is some of this willingness because LA views itself as the underdog in this race? Perhaps. But it could also be that the LA organizers welcome the opportunity to have 11 years to get ready for an Olympics instead of seven. Think about the number of cross-promotional opportunities that exist between now and then. LA's going to have at least one Super Bowl, and you'd have to figure the final of the 2026 World Cup will be at the Rose Bowl. Those are two huge events for a sponsor to attach itself to.
Of course, there are still a lot of steps to be taken before the joint 2024-2028 plan comes to fruition. First and foremost, the main job of IOC members is to vote in host city elections. For many, that's their only real function. So, they understandably want to keep it.
How would this double-awarding work anyway? Do they vote for 2024, with the loser getting 2028 as a consolation prize? Or do the cities agree prior to the IOC Session, rendering a vote pointless? Likewise, if they're awarding 2028 now, what do they do at the 2021 IOC Session, when they would normally choose the host? (Although Thomas Bach's eight-year term as IOC President expires in 2021, so maybe they'll have a Presidential election if he doesn't just get automatically reelected, which is what usually happens.)
Some critics have pointed to the potential dual-awarding as a response to the last two bid cycles, which only saw two finalists each. Samaranch quickly shot down that notion, suggesting that Madrid, Istanbul and Australia are all possible bidders. Are any of them as strong as Paris and Los Angeles, though? I don't think so. And I think that's the real reason for this push to make sure both cities get an Olympics.
Both Paris and Los Angeles are capable of putting on a great Olympic Games. The IOC understands that and wants to make sure they take advantage of the opportunity they have in front of them. And, if they can stabilize themselves for more than a decade while they figure out a way to improve the bid process, that's just a bonus. That might be part of their motivation, but it's not the only one.
If I had to put odds on it, I'd say there's a 75-80 percent likelihood that we'll see the IOC award both the 2024 and 2028 Olympics in September. They wouldn't be talking about it if they weren't going to do it. The order is the real question. Although, my feeling is that Paris will go first, followed by LA in 2028.
They've both insisted that they're only interested in 2024, but IOC Vice President Juan Antonio Samarach, Jr. (the son of the longtime IOC President) has indicated that for the joint-award to work, somebody's got to take the later edition. And he'd like the two cities to agree which one gets 2024 and which one waits until 2028 prior to the vote. That could be where things get complicated.
I've long believed that Paris is the IOC's preferred choice for 2024, for a number of reasons. After two recent failed bids, Paris feels it's finally their turn. Likewise, 2,024 will be 10 years since Sochi, the last Olympics in Europe, and 12 since London, the last Summer Games in Europe. That's way too long for the mostly-European IOC membership. Not to mention the fact that it'll be the 100th anniversary of the last time Paris hosted the Olympics in 1924.
However, the IOC is also weary of once again leaving the USOC out in the cold. The Olympics haven't been in the U.S. since Salt Lake 2002, and the Summer Games haven't been here since Atlanta 1996. That's also the last time any North American city hosted the Summer Olympics. Since then, there have been failed bids from New York and Chicago. Do you really want to reject the first, second AND third most-populous cities in the country whose broadcast rights produce the greatest portion of your revenue?
The IOC is in a very interesting (and unenviable) spot. Both bids are strong. They want them both to host. They know that the "loser" won't come back for 2028, and probably won't bid again for a loooong time. That's why they're trying to figure out a way to make both cities happy, which is where this joint award idea came from. And the joint award makes a lot of sense. As long as they can figure out which city goes first.
While remaining publicly committed to 2024 without talking about 2028, Los Angeles certainly appears to be more receptive to the idea of taking the later Games than Paris does. Paris has listed all kinds of reasons why it can only host in 2024 and flat out rejected 2028. LA hasn't. Since LA's venue plan calls for permanent arenas/stadiums that already do or will exist (the Rams/Chargers stadium), the four-year delay seems like it would be less of a problem in Southern California.
Is some of this willingness because LA views itself as the underdog in this race? Perhaps. But it could also be that the LA organizers welcome the opportunity to have 11 years to get ready for an Olympics instead of seven. Think about the number of cross-promotional opportunities that exist between now and then. LA's going to have at least one Super Bowl, and you'd have to figure the final of the 2026 World Cup will be at the Rose Bowl. Those are two huge events for a sponsor to attach itself to.
Of course, there are still a lot of steps to be taken before the joint 2024-2028 plan comes to fruition. First and foremost, the main job of IOC members is to vote in host city elections. For many, that's their only real function. So, they understandably want to keep it.
How would this double-awarding work anyway? Do they vote for 2024, with the loser getting 2028 as a consolation prize? Or do the cities agree prior to the IOC Session, rendering a vote pointless? Likewise, if they're awarding 2028 now, what do they do at the 2021 IOC Session, when they would normally choose the host? (Although Thomas Bach's eight-year term as IOC President expires in 2021, so maybe they'll have a Presidential election if he doesn't just get automatically reelected, which is what usually happens.)
Some critics have pointed to the potential dual-awarding as a response to the last two bid cycles, which only saw two finalists each. Samaranch quickly shot down that notion, suggesting that Madrid, Istanbul and Australia are all possible bidders. Are any of them as strong as Paris and Los Angeles, though? I don't think so. And I think that's the real reason for this push to make sure both cities get an Olympics.
Both Paris and Los Angeles are capable of putting on a great Olympic Games. The IOC understands that and wants to make sure they take advantage of the opportunity they have in front of them. And, if they can stabilize themselves for more than a decade while they figure out a way to improve the bid process, that's just a bonus. That might be part of their motivation, but it's not the only one.
If I had to put odds on it, I'd say there's a 75-80 percent likelihood that we'll see the IOC award both the 2024 and 2028 Olympics in September. They wouldn't be talking about it if they weren't going to do it. The order is the real question. Although, my feeling is that Paris will go first, followed by LA in 2028.
Sunday, May 21, 2017
Full National Suspensions?
The World Anti-Doping Agency was upset that the IOC didn't follow through on its suggestion to ban the entire Russian Olympic Team from the Rio games. Instead, the IOC left the decision up to the individual sports federations, which, with the notable exception of track & field, for the most part, let the Russians compete. WADA doesn't want that to happen again in PyeongChang, and they've taken steps to make sure it doesn't.
Even though the WADA code isn't due to be updated until 2021, they hope to have their proposals put into place by early next year, which would mean in time for the PyeongChang Olympics. And the main change that they seek is the ability to suspend entire nations for egregious anti-doping offenses.
Obviously Russia is the most notable country that has a doping problem (in a separate move, WADA forced RUSADA to remove Yelena Isinbayeva as their anti-doping head, which was a questionable move to begin with). But they're far from alone. There are a significant amount of doping issues in weightlifting, and nine different countries have had their national teams banned in that sport, Russia being one of them.
Under this new code, WADA would have the power to suspend a country's entire Olympic delegation for major doping violations. It would obviously be subject to appeals, but the decisions would no longer be made on a sport-by-sport basis. Either the entire national team is suspended or the entire national team is eligible. No more gray area. No more questions about the "guilt" or "innocence" of one team from a particular country. And, hopefully, no more athletes being jeered simply because they're from that country.
I don't think we're talking about mass suspensions at every Olympics here, either. I think WADA was simply looking for an option that would be the ultimate deterrent. Their own version of the NCAA "death penalty" that shut down SMU football in the '80s. And there's no better deterrent in international sport that telling an entire national team that it's not allowed to participate in the Olympics.
This is the nuclear option. Everyone knows that. That's the whole point. In many people's eyes, Russia got off easy. Basically it was only the Russian track team that was kept out of the Rio Games. A vast majority of sporting leaders felt that wasn't enough. They didn't want the Russians there at all. Neither did WADA. And considering the lack of progress Russia has made in cleaning up its act, they needed something on the table that would motivate them to get their act together. The threat of a complete ban might be the only way to do that.
Keep in mind that there isn't a single person that wants to see an entire national team banned from an Olympics. The boycotts of 1980 and 1984 proved how damaging (and incomplete) it is when the whole world isn't there. But this new code is a good thing. Because that threat needs to be there. Sadly, that might be the only way to guarantee the necessary reforms in the countries in question.
And, again, we're not talking about isolated cases of one team from a given country. We're talking about systematic doping at the state level. And all indications are that Russia's problems run from the top down. It's this type of government-sponsored doping that would be grounds for an entire national team to be prohibited from Olympic participation. In cases involving individual sports, I'm sure that would still be left up to the individual federations.
For their part, each international sporting federation would have to adhere to the new WADA guidelines, which would be standardized across the board. This uniform code would hopefully make things easier to follow, since the same rules that apply to archery would also apply to wrestling.
Perhaps most importantly, they would establish a new Independent Testing Authority. No longer would it fall strictly under WADA's umbrella to administer tests and dole out punishments to violators. This five-person ITA would consist of a President, an IOC member, an athlete, a representative from an international federation, and a neutral expert. Everyone would have a seat at the table, so it will be clear to all parties. The ITA wouldn't be required, and federations could use it as often or as little as they wish. But the sheer fact that you're not relying solely on WADA is good for all involved.
While the tight time frame means this system probably won't be in place before the PyeongChang Games, it does look like it's going to happen. Which, I think we can all agree, is a good thing. Because no one wants to see an entire country banned from an Olympics, and the threat of that possibility should be enough to scare the violators straight and pave the way for the reform that's so desperately needed.
Even though the WADA code isn't due to be updated until 2021, they hope to have their proposals put into place by early next year, which would mean in time for the PyeongChang Olympics. And the main change that they seek is the ability to suspend entire nations for egregious anti-doping offenses.
Obviously Russia is the most notable country that has a doping problem (in a separate move, WADA forced RUSADA to remove Yelena Isinbayeva as their anti-doping head, which was a questionable move to begin with). But they're far from alone. There are a significant amount of doping issues in weightlifting, and nine different countries have had their national teams banned in that sport, Russia being one of them.
Under this new code, WADA would have the power to suspend a country's entire Olympic delegation for major doping violations. It would obviously be subject to appeals, but the decisions would no longer be made on a sport-by-sport basis. Either the entire national team is suspended or the entire national team is eligible. No more gray area. No more questions about the "guilt" or "innocence" of one team from a particular country. And, hopefully, no more athletes being jeered simply because they're from that country.
I don't think we're talking about mass suspensions at every Olympics here, either. I think WADA was simply looking for an option that would be the ultimate deterrent. Their own version of the NCAA "death penalty" that shut down SMU football in the '80s. And there's no better deterrent in international sport that telling an entire national team that it's not allowed to participate in the Olympics.
This is the nuclear option. Everyone knows that. That's the whole point. In many people's eyes, Russia got off easy. Basically it was only the Russian track team that was kept out of the Rio Games. A vast majority of sporting leaders felt that wasn't enough. They didn't want the Russians there at all. Neither did WADA. And considering the lack of progress Russia has made in cleaning up its act, they needed something on the table that would motivate them to get their act together. The threat of a complete ban might be the only way to do that.
Keep in mind that there isn't a single person that wants to see an entire national team banned from an Olympics. The boycotts of 1980 and 1984 proved how damaging (and incomplete) it is when the whole world isn't there. But this new code is a good thing. Because that threat needs to be there. Sadly, that might be the only way to guarantee the necessary reforms in the countries in question.
And, again, we're not talking about isolated cases of one team from a given country. We're talking about systematic doping at the state level. And all indications are that Russia's problems run from the top down. It's this type of government-sponsored doping that would be grounds for an entire national team to be prohibited from Olympic participation. In cases involving individual sports, I'm sure that would still be left up to the individual federations.
For their part, each international sporting federation would have to adhere to the new WADA guidelines, which would be standardized across the board. This uniform code would hopefully make things easier to follow, since the same rules that apply to archery would also apply to wrestling.
Perhaps most importantly, they would establish a new Independent Testing Authority. No longer would it fall strictly under WADA's umbrella to administer tests and dole out punishments to violators. This five-person ITA would consist of a President, an IOC member, an athlete, a representative from an international federation, and a neutral expert. Everyone would have a seat at the table, so it will be clear to all parties. The ITA wouldn't be required, and federations could use it as often or as little as they wish. But the sheer fact that you're not relying solely on WADA is good for all involved.
While the tight time frame means this system probably won't be in place before the PyeongChang Games, it does look like it's going to happen. Which, I think we can all agree, is a good thing. Because no one wants to see an entire country banned from an Olympics, and the threat of that possibility should be enough to scare the violators straight and pave the way for the reform that's so desperately needed.
Thursday, May 18, 2017
There's Concussion Protocol For a Reason
Gisele Bundchen made headlines earlier this week when she said Tom Brady suffered a concussion at some point during the 2016 season, then Brady went on to basically confirm it, saying he's had several concussions throughout his career. Now we've got Drew Brees saying that he wouldn't tell his wife if he suffered one, which leads you to wonder if he'd even tell the Saints.
And that's why the NFL needs to be concerned about comments like that. Both Brady and Brees are in their late 30s, and they've both expressed their desire to play for a few more seasons. But we also saw Brett Favre's career end because of multiple concussions during his final season in Minnesota (including that one on the frozen turf on a Monday night that ended his career for good). Favre had a lot of concussions in his career, several of which went undiagnosed. Now, judging by the comments made by Bundchen and Brees, it looks like we've got two more Canton-bound quarterbacks that might have undiagnosed concussions.
Concussions are a serious problem in the NFL. They're the player safety issue that gets the most attention, and rightfully so. That's why there's an independent doctor at every game...who has the power to pull out a player he feels may be concussed. And once a player enters concussion protocol, they have to pass it (meaning, show no symptoms) before they're allowed to resume football activities. That process can sometimes take weeks.
So, if the NFL has independent doctors at every game, for the purpose of preventing concussions, then how are there still players continuing in games after suffering one? Let alone two of the marquee faces at the league's marquee position! (I'm not saying that did happen, but it wouldn't surprise me.)
The concussion protocol was set up so that everyone would be evaluated using the same criteria. And the independent doctors started administering the tests so that the team can't influence the decision on whether or not a player is truly OK to go back in. It would also, presumably, prevent players from talking their way back in. Although, Brees made it sound like that still happens.
From the players' perspective, I get it. They're getting paid a lot of money to play a very violent game, and NFL careers are short enough. Besides, they're competitive. No one wants to pull himself out of a game. Even if they're hurt, the adrenaline takes over and they insist on playing through it. Sometimes even after they start to feel concussion symptoms, they might chalk it up to "getting their bell rung" and stay in the game.
Except that's exactly what the concussion protocol is for! It shouldn't matter who you are. If the doctor determines that you have a concussion and need to be pulled from the game, that's it. No discussion. No exceptions for Tom Brady or Drew Brees or anybody else. If Tom Savage is hit hard enough to be removed from the game with a concussion and Tom Brady is hit just as hard, Brady should come out too. I don't care if it's Sunday Night Football against Pittsburgh or a 1:00 CBS regional game against Buffalo. The standards exist for a reason.
What's most disturbing, though, is that when Brady was listed on the Patriots' injury report last season, it was for his leg, thigh or ankle. Bill Belichick is notorious for not always being 100 percent truthful with his injury reports, so it's really difficult to say whether Brady had a concussion at any point in 2016. The NFL reviewed the reports, too, and they concurred that Brady hadn't suffered a concussion or complained of concussion-like symptoms at all.
This could all be much ado about nothing. It's also entirely possible that Gisele doesn't know what she's talking about. But it does bring to light a bigger issue. Because the whole point of the concussion protocol is to prevent guys from playing when they shouldn't, which, by extension, extends careers. (It's been documented that the likelihood of suffering a concussion increases if you've already had one.)
If Brady and Brees are serious about wanting to play into their mid-40s (which people have no reason not to believe), they should be taking every precaution they can so that they're healthy long enough to last a few more years. And being forthcoming about a possible concussion is one way to do that. Because the last thing anyone wants is what happened to Brett Favre on that Monday night in Minnesota to happen to one of them.
And that's why the NFL needs to be concerned about comments like that. Both Brady and Brees are in their late 30s, and they've both expressed their desire to play for a few more seasons. But we also saw Brett Favre's career end because of multiple concussions during his final season in Minnesota (including that one on the frozen turf on a Monday night that ended his career for good). Favre had a lot of concussions in his career, several of which went undiagnosed. Now, judging by the comments made by Bundchen and Brees, it looks like we've got two more Canton-bound quarterbacks that might have undiagnosed concussions.
Concussions are a serious problem in the NFL. They're the player safety issue that gets the most attention, and rightfully so. That's why there's an independent doctor at every game...who has the power to pull out a player he feels may be concussed. And once a player enters concussion protocol, they have to pass it (meaning, show no symptoms) before they're allowed to resume football activities. That process can sometimes take weeks.
So, if the NFL has independent doctors at every game, for the purpose of preventing concussions, then how are there still players continuing in games after suffering one? Let alone two of the marquee faces at the league's marquee position! (I'm not saying that did happen, but it wouldn't surprise me.)
The concussion protocol was set up so that everyone would be evaluated using the same criteria. And the independent doctors started administering the tests so that the team can't influence the decision on whether or not a player is truly OK to go back in. It would also, presumably, prevent players from talking their way back in. Although, Brees made it sound like that still happens.
From the players' perspective, I get it. They're getting paid a lot of money to play a very violent game, and NFL careers are short enough. Besides, they're competitive. No one wants to pull himself out of a game. Even if they're hurt, the adrenaline takes over and they insist on playing through it. Sometimes even after they start to feel concussion symptoms, they might chalk it up to "getting their bell rung" and stay in the game.
Except that's exactly what the concussion protocol is for! It shouldn't matter who you are. If the doctor determines that you have a concussion and need to be pulled from the game, that's it. No discussion. No exceptions for Tom Brady or Drew Brees or anybody else. If Tom Savage is hit hard enough to be removed from the game with a concussion and Tom Brady is hit just as hard, Brady should come out too. I don't care if it's Sunday Night Football against Pittsburgh or a 1:00 CBS regional game against Buffalo. The standards exist for a reason.
What's most disturbing, though, is that when Brady was listed on the Patriots' injury report last season, it was for his leg, thigh or ankle. Bill Belichick is notorious for not always being 100 percent truthful with his injury reports, so it's really difficult to say whether Brady had a concussion at any point in 2016. The NFL reviewed the reports, too, and they concurred that Brady hadn't suffered a concussion or complained of concussion-like symptoms at all.
This could all be much ado about nothing. It's also entirely possible that Gisele doesn't know what she's talking about. But it does bring to light a bigger issue. Because the whole point of the concussion protocol is to prevent guys from playing when they shouldn't, which, by extension, extends careers. (It's been documented that the likelihood of suffering a concussion increases if you've already had one.)
If Brady and Brees are serious about wanting to play into their mid-40s (which people have no reason not to believe), they should be taking every precaution they can so that they're healthy long enough to last a few more years. And being forthcoming about a possible concussion is one way to do that. Because the last thing anyone wants is what happened to Brett Favre on that Monday night in Minnesota to happen to one of them.
Wednesday, May 17, 2017
10 Days On the DL
As a part of Baseball's new CBA that was signed in December, DL stays were reduced from 15 days to 10. The theory behind this made a lot of sense. In the past, there were countless situations where a player was injured enough to miss a few days, but teams were hesitant to put him on the DL in hopes that he wouldn't be out for the entire two weeks. Being down a man for a few days was often preferable to sitting a guy out for two weeks when he might've been good to go in one.
Of course, with position players, a trip to the DL is often longer than the minimum length, so whether it's 10 or 15 days is somewhat irrelevant. But this season we've seen teams take advantage of the new DL rules in very creative ways (as noted in an ESPN.com article I read earlier today).
The article focused on the Dodgers and how they've been able to manipulate it to their benefit. They've basically figured out a way to keep an extra reliever in their bullpen while still keeping the regular allotment of five starters. How are they doing this? By utilizing their off days and the 10-day DL to essentially skip starts for the pitchers not named Kershaw.
Skipping starts for the fifth starter isn't a new thing. A lot of teams often don't even use a fifth starter until mid-April because they don't need to with the off days around Opening Day. And if you think about it, most teams have a similar stretch at some point in the season. If you have two off days in a week (or Thursday and Monday off around a weekend series), you can skip your No. 5 starter and keep the other four on their regular rest. Likewise, if a starting pitcher gets suspended, his team can usually work it so that he doesn't really miss a start (which kinda defeats the whole point, but that's a topic for another day).
LA did it a little differently. They're doing it to give guys extra rest while still giving all their starters work. The Dodgers recently skipped a Kenta Maeda start by putting him on the DL. Who replaced him? Hyun-Jin Ryu, who had just spent exactly 10 days on the DL himself. And when Maeda comes off the DL, you can bet the Dodgers will put another starting pitcher on in his place. And since there's no rule about how many times a player can be put on the DL over the course of the season, they can theoretically do this until the rosters expand in September.
Some of the "injuries" used to put pitchers on the DL may appear somewhat dubious, but you can't dispute the brilliance of the strategy. Not only are they keeping their pitchers fresh, they've basically found a way to have a 26-man roster. I applaud them for figuring it out.
Now, the Dodgers are a bit of a unique case in that they have six starting pitchers, so this is a way to give them all "regular" work, even if it means they won't be making the standard 32-33 starts apiece. But having everybody healthy going into the playoffs is much more important for a team like the Dodgers, and limiting their pitchers to 27-28 starts each is one way to do that. And if the rules allow for them to finagle DL stints to make that happen, why not do it?
This obviously wasn't the intent of the DL change. But I wouldn't be surprised to see other teams start doing it, too. Because it makes total sense. And I don't see the Union having any sort of an issue with it, either. It gives more guys Major League service time, starting their free agency clocks, and puts a Major League salary in two players' pockets instead of just one (you collect your regular salary while on the DL).
We've obviously seen more DL trips in the first six weeks of this season than we did last season. That's part of the point. Teams are more likely to put a guy on the DL if they don't have to wait two weeks and can get him back in a week and a half instead.
But we also might be seeing a bit of a DL revolution. You can use any minor "injury" to take a guy out of commission for 10 days, which lets you use somebody else in his place. And that seems preferable to the Triple A shuttle. For everyone.
Of course, with position players, a trip to the DL is often longer than the minimum length, so whether it's 10 or 15 days is somewhat irrelevant. But this season we've seen teams take advantage of the new DL rules in very creative ways (as noted in an ESPN.com article I read earlier today).
The article focused on the Dodgers and how they've been able to manipulate it to their benefit. They've basically figured out a way to keep an extra reliever in their bullpen while still keeping the regular allotment of five starters. How are they doing this? By utilizing their off days and the 10-day DL to essentially skip starts for the pitchers not named Kershaw.
Skipping starts for the fifth starter isn't a new thing. A lot of teams often don't even use a fifth starter until mid-April because they don't need to with the off days around Opening Day. And if you think about it, most teams have a similar stretch at some point in the season. If you have two off days in a week (or Thursday and Monday off around a weekend series), you can skip your No. 5 starter and keep the other four on their regular rest. Likewise, if a starting pitcher gets suspended, his team can usually work it so that he doesn't really miss a start (which kinda defeats the whole point, but that's a topic for another day).
LA did it a little differently. They're doing it to give guys extra rest while still giving all their starters work. The Dodgers recently skipped a Kenta Maeda start by putting him on the DL. Who replaced him? Hyun-Jin Ryu, who had just spent exactly 10 days on the DL himself. And when Maeda comes off the DL, you can bet the Dodgers will put another starting pitcher on in his place. And since there's no rule about how many times a player can be put on the DL over the course of the season, they can theoretically do this until the rosters expand in September.
Some of the "injuries" used to put pitchers on the DL may appear somewhat dubious, but you can't dispute the brilliance of the strategy. Not only are they keeping their pitchers fresh, they've basically found a way to have a 26-man roster. I applaud them for figuring it out.
Now, the Dodgers are a bit of a unique case in that they have six starting pitchers, so this is a way to give them all "regular" work, even if it means they won't be making the standard 32-33 starts apiece. But having everybody healthy going into the playoffs is much more important for a team like the Dodgers, and limiting their pitchers to 27-28 starts each is one way to do that. And if the rules allow for them to finagle DL stints to make that happen, why not do it?
This obviously wasn't the intent of the DL change. But I wouldn't be surprised to see other teams start doing it, too. Because it makes total sense. And I don't see the Union having any sort of an issue with it, either. It gives more guys Major League service time, starting their free agency clocks, and puts a Major League salary in two players' pockets instead of just one (you collect your regular salary while on the DL).
We've obviously seen more DL trips in the first six weeks of this season than we did last season. That's part of the point. Teams are more likely to put a guy on the DL if they don't have to wait two weeks and can get him back in a week and a half instead.
But we also might be seeing a bit of a DL revolution. You can use any minor "injury" to take a guy out of commission for 10 days, which lets you use somebody else in his place. And that seems preferable to the Triple A shuttle. For everyone.
Monday, May 15, 2017
Next Numbers Retired
No Yankee will ever wear a single-digit number again. Derek Jeter had the last one. His number retirement will probably be the Yankees' last for a while (at least until they figure out they should retire 21), and, after the Red Sox retire No. 34 for David Ortiz later this year, we're not gonna have a significant one for a while. Sure, the Mariners will retire 51 for Ichiro/Randy Johnson once Ichiro retires, but Ichiro's still playing for the Marlins right now.
We knew for the last, oh, I'd say 10 years of his career that Jeter's number was going to be retired. Just like we know a handful of active players will be the last to wear their number for their current teams. Things could change, but I think it's safe to say that there are teams already planning number retirement ceremonies for the faces of their franchise.
Dustin Pedroia: There are two no-brainers on this list, and he's one of them. Pedroia's been as much a part of what the Red Sox have done over the past 15 years as anyone. It probably took them about 11 seconds to decide to retire Ortiz's number. I'd imagine it'll take them just as long to make a similar decision about Dustin Pedroia.
Yadier Molina: Yadi Molina is the other guy who the only question about a number retirement is "When?" In fact, I probably should've put him first, because there's absolutely no doubt about Yadi. He's probably going to get a statue outside Busch Stadium, too. He's meant that much to the Cardinals organization.
Buster Posey/Madison Bumgarner: Posey and Bumgarner go together because it's difficult to say one deserves it over the other. They've both been the faces of the Giants during their run of even-year championships. It's hard to envision San Francisco retiring one number and not the other. Especially since they've both become iconic figures in the Bay Area.
Miguel Cabrera: I feel pretty good about this one, too (although, the Tigers haven't retired Alan Trammell's number yet). He was the best player in baseball for a while and has been the face of that team for quite some time. Miggy's headed to Cooperstown, and he'll likely be wearing a Tigers hat when he gets there.
Clayton Kershaw: Like Miggy, Kershaw is yet to lead his team to the Promised Land (at least not yet). But he's already entered into that pantheon on great Dodgers starting pitchers. I'm not sure if he needs it, but a World Series title will definitely put him over the top.
Felix Hernandez: Seattle's got plenty of other numbers to retire first. They've still got Jay Buhner, Ichiro/Randy Johnson after Edgar Martinez's 11 is retired this year. it would be cool if the two 51s got their (shared) number retired together. After that, 34 shouldn't be too far behind. It's not his fault Seattle has been God awful his entire career.
David Wright: The Mets also have some numbers that they need to worry about retiring before David Wright's No. 5 (Gary Carter, Keith Hernandez). But Wright shouldn't be that far behind. Let's take the fact that his career is probably over out of the equation for a second. He's meant more to the Mets than anybody over the last 15 years. At the same level as Tom Seaver or Mike Piazza? No. But enough to warrant number retirement.
Joe Mauer: Another no-brainer in my opinion. It's almost too easy. Mauer's from Minnesota, and he's been on the Twins for so long I don't even remember him not being there. He's beloved in the Twin Cities. Can you envision anyone else wearing No. 7 for the Twins after he retires? I can't either.
Evan Longoria: Tampa Bay has two retired numbers...for Wade Boggs and Don Zimmer. But Evan Longoria is, without question, the best player in Rays history. And he's a career Ray, too. His arrival corresponded with the team becoming relevant, and he's shown incredible loyalty by staying there as the Rays continue to lose free agents. His number won't be the first they retire, but it'll be the most meaningful.
Other names who appear headed to number retirement include Eric Hosmer, Mike Trout (and, by extension, Vladimir Guerrero) and Giancarlo Stanton, while Kris Bryant/Anthony Rizzo and Bryce Harper could certainly join those ranks if they stay with their current teams long enough. Likewise, there are some active players who appear destined to have a day with their former clubs (Ichiro, Albert Pujols). I think these 10 are a safe bet to be honored, though.
We knew for the last, oh, I'd say 10 years of his career that Jeter's number was going to be retired. Just like we know a handful of active players will be the last to wear their number for their current teams. Things could change, but I think it's safe to say that there are teams already planning number retirement ceremonies for the faces of their franchise.
Dustin Pedroia: There are two no-brainers on this list, and he's one of them. Pedroia's been as much a part of what the Red Sox have done over the past 15 years as anyone. It probably took them about 11 seconds to decide to retire Ortiz's number. I'd imagine it'll take them just as long to make a similar decision about Dustin Pedroia.
Yadier Molina: Yadi Molina is the other guy who the only question about a number retirement is "When?" In fact, I probably should've put him first, because there's absolutely no doubt about Yadi. He's probably going to get a statue outside Busch Stadium, too. He's meant that much to the Cardinals organization.
Buster Posey/Madison Bumgarner: Posey and Bumgarner go together because it's difficult to say one deserves it over the other. They've both been the faces of the Giants during their run of even-year championships. It's hard to envision San Francisco retiring one number and not the other. Especially since they've both become iconic figures in the Bay Area.
Miguel Cabrera: I feel pretty good about this one, too (although, the Tigers haven't retired Alan Trammell's number yet). He was the best player in baseball for a while and has been the face of that team for quite some time. Miggy's headed to Cooperstown, and he'll likely be wearing a Tigers hat when he gets there.
Clayton Kershaw: Like Miggy, Kershaw is yet to lead his team to the Promised Land (at least not yet). But he's already entered into that pantheon on great Dodgers starting pitchers. I'm not sure if he needs it, but a World Series title will definitely put him over the top.
Felix Hernandez: Seattle's got plenty of other numbers to retire first. They've still got Jay Buhner, Ichiro/Randy Johnson after Edgar Martinez's 11 is retired this year. it would be cool if the two 51s got their (shared) number retired together. After that, 34 shouldn't be too far behind. It's not his fault Seattle has been God awful his entire career.
David Wright: The Mets also have some numbers that they need to worry about retiring before David Wright's No. 5 (Gary Carter, Keith Hernandez). But Wright shouldn't be that far behind. Let's take the fact that his career is probably over out of the equation for a second. He's meant more to the Mets than anybody over the last 15 years. At the same level as Tom Seaver or Mike Piazza? No. But enough to warrant number retirement.
Joe Mauer: Another no-brainer in my opinion. It's almost too easy. Mauer's from Minnesota, and he's been on the Twins for so long I don't even remember him not being there. He's beloved in the Twin Cities. Can you envision anyone else wearing No. 7 for the Twins after he retires? I can't either.
Evan Longoria: Tampa Bay has two retired numbers...for Wade Boggs and Don Zimmer. But Evan Longoria is, without question, the best player in Rays history. And he's a career Ray, too. His arrival corresponded with the team becoming relevant, and he's shown incredible loyalty by staying there as the Rays continue to lose free agents. His number won't be the first they retire, but it'll be the most meaningful.
Other names who appear headed to number retirement include Eric Hosmer, Mike Trout (and, by extension, Vladimir Guerrero) and Giancarlo Stanton, while Kris Bryant/Anthony Rizzo and Bryce Harper could certainly join those ranks if they stay with their current teams long enough. Likewise, there are some active players who appear destined to have a day with their former clubs (Ichiro, Albert Pujols). I think these 10 are a safe bet to be honored, though.
Saturday, May 13, 2017
Favorite Derek Jeter Memories
"Now batting for the Yankees. Number 2. Derek Jeter. Shortstop. Number 2."
Bob Sheppard's iconic introduction is one of the many lasting memories that Derek Jeter provided during his career in Pinstripes. They have to play it during the number retirement ceremony, right? With number 2 set to take its rightful place on the wall in Monument Park, we've been reminiscing about The Captain all week. Jeter holds a special place in the heart of all Yankees fans. For many, he was the team during the late 90s dynasty. And he was baseball for most as his career neared its end.
YES had a poll question the other day asking people to describe Derek Jeter in one word. For me "Class" was the first word that came to mind. He has such respect for Joe Torre that, to this day, he calls him "Mr. Torre." He understood and appreciated Yankees history as he was making it. He took the role of captain and embraced it. Even those people who hate the Yankees revere Derek Jeter. Try to find a person who has a bad thing to say about him. It'll take you a while.
There's a simple reason for that. Derek Jeter has always been, and always will be, a gentleman. It's tough to dislike a guy who does everything the right way. Derek Jeter knows and respects Yankees history, and he knows his place in it. His relationship with Yogi Berra and Phil Rizzuto was special, as is his relationship with "Mr. Torre." And, naturally, he's become a mentor to younger players like Aaron Judge.
Who's responsible for all of that? His parents. They've been there every step of the way, fixtures in the Yankee Stadium stands, keeping him grounded. It's always been about family for him. That's why he chose Mother's Day for the ceremony...as a tribute to his mom. Famously a bachelor throughout his career, he'll soon be a father himself. And, boy, will he have some stories to tell his unborn daughter. So will everyone else.
Everyone has their favorite Derek Jeter highlights. And everyone's are different, although most of them involve that beautiful inside-out swing. There's the dive into the stands against Boston; the "Mr. November" home run in the 2001 World Series; the home run for his 3,000th hit; his speech at the end of the final game at the Old Stadium; his Opening Day home run in Cleveland his rookie year; passing Lou Gehrig on the all-time Yankee Stadium hits list just days before the Old Stadium closed its doors; the flip against Oakland in the playoffs; the Jeffrey Maier home run; the leadoff double and minutes-long standing ovation at his final All-Star Game; his walk-off Yankee Stadium farewell. The list goes on and on.
Derek Jeter didn't just inspire a generation of baseball fans. He inspired a generation of baseball players. How many current Major Leaguers list Derek Jeter as their favorite player or wear No. 2 because of him? It's the rare player that can generate such respect from those he's playing against. Derek Jeter was one of those players. At his final All-Star Game, Mike Trout was in awe just to be around him. Mike Trout, a superstar in his own right (and the new face of baseball), was in awe of Derek Jeter.
The rest of the Core Four have all had their days. Now Derek gets his due. The question of whether or not he'll be the first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee when he becomes eligible in 2020 is really kind of irrelevant. Because we all know he'll be giving a speech in Cooperstown that summer.
His eventual Hall of Fame induction is for all baseball fans. But Sunday is for Yankees fans. It's a chance to say thank you to The Captain, the last man ever to wear a single-digit number for baseball's most iconic franchise. One last chance to show their appreciation for all he's meant to the franchise over the last 20 years.
It's actually kind of fitting that Saturday's game got rained out. Because how many games will the Yankees be playing on Sunday now? Oh, that's right. 2.
Bob Sheppard's iconic introduction is one of the many lasting memories that Derek Jeter provided during his career in Pinstripes. They have to play it during the number retirement ceremony, right? With number 2 set to take its rightful place on the wall in Monument Park, we've been reminiscing about The Captain all week. Jeter holds a special place in the heart of all Yankees fans. For many, he was the team during the late 90s dynasty. And he was baseball for most as his career neared its end.
There's a simple reason for that. Derek Jeter has always been, and always will be, a gentleman. It's tough to dislike a guy who does everything the right way. Derek Jeter knows and respects Yankees history, and he knows his place in it. His relationship with Yogi Berra and Phil Rizzuto was special, as is his relationship with "Mr. Torre." And, naturally, he's become a mentor to younger players like Aaron Judge.
Who's responsible for all of that? His parents. They've been there every step of the way, fixtures in the Yankee Stadium stands, keeping him grounded. It's always been about family for him. That's why he chose Mother's Day for the ceremony...as a tribute to his mom. Famously a bachelor throughout his career, he'll soon be a father himself. And, boy, will he have some stories to tell his unborn daughter. So will everyone else.
Everyone has their favorite Derek Jeter highlights. And everyone's are different, although most of them involve that beautiful inside-out swing. There's the dive into the stands against Boston; the "Mr. November" home run in the 2001 World Series; the home run for his 3,000th hit; his speech at the end of the final game at the Old Stadium; his Opening Day home run in Cleveland his rookie year; passing Lou Gehrig on the all-time Yankee Stadium hits list just days before the Old Stadium closed its doors; the flip against Oakland in the playoffs; the Jeffrey Maier home run; the leadoff double and minutes-long standing ovation at his final All-Star Game; his walk-off Yankee Stadium farewell. The list goes on and on.
The rest of the Core Four have all had their days. Now Derek gets his due. The question of whether or not he'll be the first unanimous Hall of Fame inductee when he becomes eligible in 2020 is really kind of irrelevant. Because we all know he'll be giving a speech in Cooperstown that summer.
His eventual Hall of Fame induction is for all baseball fans. But Sunday is for Yankees fans. It's a chance to say thank you to The Captain, the last man ever to wear a single-digit number for baseball's most iconic franchise. One last chance to show their appreciation for all he's meant to the franchise over the last 20 years.
It's actually kind of fitting that Saturday's game got rained out. Because how many games will the Yankees be playing on Sunday now? Oh, that's right. 2.
Friday, May 12, 2017
NHL Conference Finals
Congratulations to the Ducks on finally winning a Game 7! And at home no less! Congratulations to the NHL on avoiding that Senators-Oilers Final I'm sure you were dreading! Congratulations to the Predators on your first-ever Conference Final appearance! And congratulations to the Penguins on knocking out the President's Trophy winners yet again!
Notice I didn't congratulate the Senators on "winning" their series. That's because I still haven't figured out how they did. The Rangers were the better team in four (maybe even five) of those six games. They gave away two games at the end, but all credit to Ottawa for taking advantage. There probably aren't many people who expected to see the Senators four wins away from playing for the Cup, yet here they are. Beating Pittsburgh will be a daunting challenge, though.
I actually thought for a second that the Penguins might find a way to blow that 3-1 lead against the Capitals. Especially with how inspired Washington came out in Game 6. Then the Penguins played like the Penguins in Game 7, and the Capitals once again came up short of the Eastern Conference Final. And now Pittsburgh becomes the overwhelming favorite to become the first team to win consecutive Cups since the 1997-98 Red Wings.
That's not to say Pittsburgh is unbeatable, though. Sidney Crosby's health is always a question, especially after he missed Game 4 of the Washington series with another concussion. And their goaltending will continue to be suspect as long as Marc-Andre Fleury is around. But they're also the best offensive team around, and they're perfectly capable of outscoring you.
There's not really much I can point to as an area where Ottawa has the advantage over Pittsburgh. Yes, they have one of the best defensemen in the game in Erik Karlsson. But Karlsson played Duncan Keith-like minutes in the first two rounds, and he definitely looked injured towards the end of the Rangers series. Can he continue to play half the game and effectively take out the other team's best player? Problem with playing Pittsburgh is that even if he does that, the Penguins have too many offensive weapons. Karlsson can't stop them all.
Can Ottawa steal a game or two? Sure. After all, they got outplayed by the Rangers for a vast majority of the last series. But they managed to hang around before striking at the end, including those two overtime winners in Ottawa. So I won't say this will be a Penguins sweep. I just don't see a way the Senators beat them four times, though. Pittsburgh in six.
Out west, however, that's going to be a great series. Just like it was last year, when the Predators handed the Ducks one of their trademarked Game 7 home losses. And both of these teams are better than they were last season, as well as the two most impressive clubs so far in the playoffs.
Unlike the Pittsburgh-Ottawa series, I'd be very surprised if this one didn't go the distance. There just isn't that much separating the Ducks and Predators. It's why they were both popular Stanley Cup picks in the preseason. And, frankly, either one will give the Penguins a run for their money in the Final.
So which one will it be? Well, the Predators are by far the hottest team. They're firing on all cylinders right now, and Pekka Rinne is getting hot at just the right time. In fact, all of the Predators are. One of the keys to the Stanley Cup Playoffs, they always say, is just getting in. Nashville's certainly proving that. Because there's no way this is the eighth-best team in the Western Conference.
Anaheim might be the best team out West, though. The Ducks have been teetering on the brink for the last couple years, yet have always found a way to screw things up. Is this the year things will be different? Well, after that crazy comeback from 3-0 down with like five minutes left in Game 5 against Edmonton, you've gotta think it might be. This year's Ducks aren't doing the things that have cost them dearly in the past. They look like a team on a mission.
It really could go either way. I don't see much of a difference between these two teams at all. Anaheim's strength is its scoring ability, while Nashville relies on its outstanding defense and goaltending. The Predators have gotten out to a bunch of early leads this postseason, allowing them to dictate play. Anaheim has shown an incredible ability to come from behind, though. This series could easily go back-and-forth, which is where the Ducks' home ice advantage might come into play.
Except Game 7 in Anaheim is clearly not an issue for the Predators. They showed that last year. And I think Pekka Rinne's going to be the X-factor in this series. He'll steal at least one game for Nashville. He's the reason I give the Predators the edge. Nashville keeps its incredible season going and plays in its first Stanley Cup Final. Predators in seven.
Notice I didn't congratulate the Senators on "winning" their series. That's because I still haven't figured out how they did. The Rangers were the better team in four (maybe even five) of those six games. They gave away two games at the end, but all credit to Ottawa for taking advantage. There probably aren't many people who expected to see the Senators four wins away from playing for the Cup, yet here they are. Beating Pittsburgh will be a daunting challenge, though.
I actually thought for a second that the Penguins might find a way to blow that 3-1 lead against the Capitals. Especially with how inspired Washington came out in Game 6. Then the Penguins played like the Penguins in Game 7, and the Capitals once again came up short of the Eastern Conference Final. And now Pittsburgh becomes the overwhelming favorite to become the first team to win consecutive Cups since the 1997-98 Red Wings.
That's not to say Pittsburgh is unbeatable, though. Sidney Crosby's health is always a question, especially after he missed Game 4 of the Washington series with another concussion. And their goaltending will continue to be suspect as long as Marc-Andre Fleury is around. But they're also the best offensive team around, and they're perfectly capable of outscoring you.
There's not really much I can point to as an area where Ottawa has the advantage over Pittsburgh. Yes, they have one of the best defensemen in the game in Erik Karlsson. But Karlsson played Duncan Keith-like minutes in the first two rounds, and he definitely looked injured towards the end of the Rangers series. Can he continue to play half the game and effectively take out the other team's best player? Problem with playing Pittsburgh is that even if he does that, the Penguins have too many offensive weapons. Karlsson can't stop them all.
Can Ottawa steal a game or two? Sure. After all, they got outplayed by the Rangers for a vast majority of the last series. But they managed to hang around before striking at the end, including those two overtime winners in Ottawa. So I won't say this will be a Penguins sweep. I just don't see a way the Senators beat them four times, though. Pittsburgh in six.
Out west, however, that's going to be a great series. Just like it was last year, when the Predators handed the Ducks one of their trademarked Game 7 home losses. And both of these teams are better than they were last season, as well as the two most impressive clubs so far in the playoffs.
Unlike the Pittsburgh-Ottawa series, I'd be very surprised if this one didn't go the distance. There just isn't that much separating the Ducks and Predators. It's why they were both popular Stanley Cup picks in the preseason. And, frankly, either one will give the Penguins a run for their money in the Final.
So which one will it be? Well, the Predators are by far the hottest team. They're firing on all cylinders right now, and Pekka Rinne is getting hot at just the right time. In fact, all of the Predators are. One of the keys to the Stanley Cup Playoffs, they always say, is just getting in. Nashville's certainly proving that. Because there's no way this is the eighth-best team in the Western Conference.
Anaheim might be the best team out West, though. The Ducks have been teetering on the brink for the last couple years, yet have always found a way to screw things up. Is this the year things will be different? Well, after that crazy comeback from 3-0 down with like five minutes left in Game 5 against Edmonton, you've gotta think it might be. This year's Ducks aren't doing the things that have cost them dearly in the past. They look like a team on a mission.
It really could go either way. I don't see much of a difference between these two teams at all. Anaheim's strength is its scoring ability, while Nashville relies on its outstanding defense and goaltending. The Predators have gotten out to a bunch of early leads this postseason, allowing them to dictate play. Anaheim has shown an incredible ability to come from behind, though. This series could easily go back-and-forth, which is where the Ducks' home ice advantage might come into play.
Except Game 7 in Anaheim is clearly not an issue for the Predators. They showed that last year. And I think Pekka Rinne's going to be the X-factor in this series. He'll steal at least one game for Nashville. He's the reason I give the Predators the edge. Nashville keeps its incredible season going and plays in its first Stanley Cup Final. Predators in seven.
Tuesday, May 9, 2017
MLB Early Returns
We're just over a month into the baseball season, and it's safe to say some unexpected things have happened thus far. The Yankees weren't supposed to be this good yet, the Rockies weren't supposed to be this good period, and I don't know what's going on with the Giants. Meanwhile, we've got the Orioles and Red Sox more concerned with throwing at each other than actually trying to win games. And to think, the fun is just starting.
I'll start with the Yankees. It turns out Brian Cashman knows what he's doing after all. After they started 1-4, everyone was thinking "Here we go again." They've lost a total of five games since then. I was at that game against Baltimore where they rallied from 9-1 down to win 14-11 in 10. It was one of the craziest games I've ever been to live. The excitement was gone from Yankee Stadium for the last couple years. It's back now, though.
There's one guy who's mostly responsible for this. Aaron Judge's at-bats have become appointment television. Even when he doesn't hit a home run, he crushes the ball. This guy's got superstar written all over him. He's even usurped Gary Sanchez as "that guy" on the Yankees. They've been waiting for that next transcendent star to become the new Face of the Franchise. I think they've found him.
Can Major League Baseball just put Judge in the Home Run Derby now? Seriously, what are they waiting for? The All-Star Game is in Miami, so you know Giancarlo's going to be in it. And who doesn't want to see that Judge vs. Stanton matchup? In fact, throw Eric Thames in there, too. Milwaukee took a gamble that Thames' numbers in Korea would translate to the Majors, and boy were they right! He's the biggest reason why the Brewers are right in the thick of things in a crowded NL Central.
Speaking of the NL Central, the Cubs certainly aren't playing like the Cubs of last year. Which isn't completely unexpected. Call it World Series Hangover if you like. But there's also no reason for concern on the North Side. They're still the best team in the NL Central by a wide margin. They'll get it straightened out. And, for as "bad" as they've been, they're still just a game out of first.
In their place, Washington seems to have taken over as the best team in the National League. Everyone already knew that the Nationals were good. But this good? Bryce Harper is back to being Bryce Harper and Ryan Zimmerman is hitting .420! Seriously!? He's the runaway NL MVP after a month. Of course, their real test will come in October, which has provided them with plenty of problems over the last few years. I'm not saying they should start planning for the playoffs now. But they've been awfully impressive so far.
Teams that have NOT been impressive so far include the Blue Jays and Giants. After two straight trips to the ALCS, Toronto is a shell of its former self. I think what we're seeing this year is the importance of Edwin Encarnacion on that team. Sure, they're missing the injured Josh Donaldson and Troy Tulowitzki, but Encarnacion won't be coming back. And his absence is surely being felt. We're also seeing why nobody else wanted Jose Bautista as a free agent.
San Francisco, meanwhile, saw things go from bad to worse with Madison Bumgarner's dirt bike accident. He won't be back until the All-Star Break at the earliest, and who knows what kind of shape he'll be in when he does? Of course, there may not even be a need to rush him back. Because this sure has the makings of a lost season for the Giants (it is an odd-year anyway).
Then there's the Mets. I don't know of any other way to describe the state of that team than to use an expression us New Yorkers commonly use. "They're the Mets." What that means is crazy/bad things just find a way to happen around them. And it's rarely just one.
Case in point, Noah Syndergaard. He scratches himself from a start because of discomfort, refuses an MRI, says he feels fine, then gets pulled from his next start in the second inning with an injury that the MRI could've seen. Now he's out for an extended period when he simply could've just gotten the MRI when the team wanted him to.
When Syndergaard missed that start, the Mets moved Matt Harvey up a day to take his place. Except Harvey had thrown a bullpen the day before and was in "no position to pitch," and he made sure everyone knew it after he got rocked. As if throwing the team under the bus wasn't enough, Harvey missed his most recent start because he was suspended by the team. Although, he's blaming it on a miscommunication and is filing a grievance against the Mets.
Needless to say, the honeymoon is over with Matt Harvey and the Mets. He's no longer the pitcher that took New York by storm in 2013. It really started to go downhill when he came back out for the ninth inning in Game 5 of the 2015 World Series, only to have the Royals tie the game before winning in extras. Most people were already predicting that Harvey would no longer be a Met when he became a free agent, and I think this latest saga sealed the deal in that regard.
Lastly, we've got Starling Marte. His situation is just sad. The Pirates basically forced Andrew McCutchen to move to center field so that they could build around Marte in center. Except he failed a PED test and received an 80-game suspension. And he won't just miss half the season, he's ineligible for the playoffs (should Pittsburgh even get there). Which puts McCutchen back in center and a guy who should be playing in the Minors in right.
That old baseball axiom is "You can't win the pennant in April, but you sure can lose it." It's true. We're only a month in. There's still five months to go. But for teams like the Yankees, Nationals and Astros, it was a good April. Meanwhile, the Blue Jays, Giants and Mets have some work to do. Fortunately for them, they've got five months to do it.
I'll start with the Yankees. It turns out Brian Cashman knows what he's doing after all. After they started 1-4, everyone was thinking "Here we go again." They've lost a total of five games since then. I was at that game against Baltimore where they rallied from 9-1 down to win 14-11 in 10. It was one of the craziest games I've ever been to live. The excitement was gone from Yankee Stadium for the last couple years. It's back now, though.
There's one guy who's mostly responsible for this. Aaron Judge's at-bats have become appointment television. Even when he doesn't hit a home run, he crushes the ball. This guy's got superstar written all over him. He's even usurped Gary Sanchez as "that guy" on the Yankees. They've been waiting for that next transcendent star to become the new Face of the Franchise. I think they've found him.
Can Major League Baseball just put Judge in the Home Run Derby now? Seriously, what are they waiting for? The All-Star Game is in Miami, so you know Giancarlo's going to be in it. And who doesn't want to see that Judge vs. Stanton matchup? In fact, throw Eric Thames in there, too. Milwaukee took a gamble that Thames' numbers in Korea would translate to the Majors, and boy were they right! He's the biggest reason why the Brewers are right in the thick of things in a crowded NL Central.
Speaking of the NL Central, the Cubs certainly aren't playing like the Cubs of last year. Which isn't completely unexpected. Call it World Series Hangover if you like. But there's also no reason for concern on the North Side. They're still the best team in the NL Central by a wide margin. They'll get it straightened out. And, for as "bad" as they've been, they're still just a game out of first.
In their place, Washington seems to have taken over as the best team in the National League. Everyone already knew that the Nationals were good. But this good? Bryce Harper is back to being Bryce Harper and Ryan Zimmerman is hitting .420! Seriously!? He's the runaway NL MVP after a month. Of course, their real test will come in October, which has provided them with plenty of problems over the last few years. I'm not saying they should start planning for the playoffs now. But they've been awfully impressive so far.
Teams that have NOT been impressive so far include the Blue Jays and Giants. After two straight trips to the ALCS, Toronto is a shell of its former self. I think what we're seeing this year is the importance of Edwin Encarnacion on that team. Sure, they're missing the injured Josh Donaldson and Troy Tulowitzki, but Encarnacion won't be coming back. And his absence is surely being felt. We're also seeing why nobody else wanted Jose Bautista as a free agent.
San Francisco, meanwhile, saw things go from bad to worse with Madison Bumgarner's dirt bike accident. He won't be back until the All-Star Break at the earliest, and who knows what kind of shape he'll be in when he does? Of course, there may not even be a need to rush him back. Because this sure has the makings of a lost season for the Giants (it is an odd-year anyway).
Then there's the Mets. I don't know of any other way to describe the state of that team than to use an expression us New Yorkers commonly use. "They're the Mets." What that means is crazy/bad things just find a way to happen around them. And it's rarely just one.
Case in point, Noah Syndergaard. He scratches himself from a start because of discomfort, refuses an MRI, says he feels fine, then gets pulled from his next start in the second inning with an injury that the MRI could've seen. Now he's out for an extended period when he simply could've just gotten the MRI when the team wanted him to.
When Syndergaard missed that start, the Mets moved Matt Harvey up a day to take his place. Except Harvey had thrown a bullpen the day before and was in "no position to pitch," and he made sure everyone knew it after he got rocked. As if throwing the team under the bus wasn't enough, Harvey missed his most recent start because he was suspended by the team. Although, he's blaming it on a miscommunication and is filing a grievance against the Mets.
Needless to say, the honeymoon is over with Matt Harvey and the Mets. He's no longer the pitcher that took New York by storm in 2013. It really started to go downhill when he came back out for the ninth inning in Game 5 of the 2015 World Series, only to have the Royals tie the game before winning in extras. Most people were already predicting that Harvey would no longer be a Met when he became a free agent, and I think this latest saga sealed the deal in that regard.
Lastly, we've got Starling Marte. His situation is just sad. The Pirates basically forced Andrew McCutchen to move to center field so that they could build around Marte in center. Except he failed a PED test and received an 80-game suspension. And he won't just miss half the season, he's ineligible for the playoffs (should Pittsburgh even get there). Which puts McCutchen back in center and a guy who should be playing in the Minors in right.
That old baseball axiom is "You can't win the pennant in April, but you sure can lose it." It's true. We're only a month in. There's still five months to go. But for teams like the Yankees, Nationals and Astros, it was a good April. Meanwhile, the Blue Jays, Giants and Mets have some work to do. Fortunately for them, they've got five months to do it.
Friday, May 5, 2017
Bob Meusel: Hall of Famer
Did you know that Adrian Beltre is tied for the all-time lead in cycles? It's true. He's done it three times. And he's the only one that's done it in the Expansion Era. In fact, the other three all did it before World War II--John Reilly in the 1800s, Babe Herman in the 1930s, and Bob Meusel.
Where am I going with all of this? Well, seeing that article got me thinking about something that I've wondered in the past. And that's why isn't Bob Meusel in the Hall of Fame? He was on the Veterans Committee ballot in 1982, but wasn't elected. I'm not sure if he's been considered since, but he should be. Because he has better numbers and more championships than some other players from the 1920s that already have plaques in Cooperstown.
Meusel played 11 years from 1920-30, all but the last of which was with the Yankees. He was a member of the Yankees' first six pennant-winning teams, as well as their first three World Championship teams. On that historic "Murderer's Row" 1927 squad, Meusel batted fifth--behind two guys you might've heard of. Their names were Ruth and Gehrig. He also hit ahead of another Hall of Famer, Tony Lazzeri.
Was Meusel remotely near the caliber of his celebrated teammates? Of course not. I'm not trying to argue that he was. But the fact that he was, at best, the fourth-best player on the 1927 Yankees shouldn't disqualify him, either. That was one of the greatest teams in history for a reason. And you're not going to convince me that Bob Meusel wasn't a key part of the Yankees' success as they became The Yankees.
I'm not just waxing poetic about him because he was a member of the 1927 Yankees, either. Bob Meusel certainly has the numbers that should warrant serious Hall of Fame consideration. He was a career .309 hitter who also hit 368 career doubles, 95 triples and 156 home runs to go along with 1,071 RBIs. Meusel also had 143 career stolen bases. This was right as baseball transitioned from the Dead Ball Era to the Live Ball Era. They played 154-game season then, but Baseball-Reference only does 162-game averages, and they've got Meusel averaging 42 doubles, 11 triples, 18 homers and 123 RBIs a year according to their projections. And, while you know I place no value in this "stat," his career WAR was 27.6.
He had eight RBIs in the 1923 World Series, including five in Game 5, as the Yankees won their first title. Then in 1925, Meusel led the American League in both home runs (33) and RBIs (138) (yet was only 18th in AL MVP voting?). That was one of just two seasons in the 1920s where Babe Ruth didn't win at least a share of the AL home run title. At the time of his retirement, he held most Yankee records for right-handed hitters, only to have them later broken by Lazzeri and the next guy to wear No. 5 in the Bronx--Joe DiMaggio.
Then there was the defense. Meusel was long considered one of the best outfielders of his day. He had 28 outfield assists in 1921 alone (and 24 in 1922) and recorded 157 in his career. Meusel played primarily left field, although he occasionally swapped with Ruth and played right. In his obituary, the New York Times called Meusel's throwing arm "deadly accurate," and Casey Stengel said that he had never seen a better thrower.
There are plenty of negatives associated with Meusel, too. And if I had to guess, I'd imagine these are the primary reasons why he hasn't come close to Hall of Fame election in the past. He struck out a lot (his 24 World Series strikeouts were a record until broken by Gil McDougald). Meusel was also criticized for being lazy, which some said prevented him from being truly great. Evidently, he wasn't well liked by his teammates and the media either.
Since it's the media that votes for the Hall of Fame, I'd imagine that might be the primary reason why Meusel isn't a Hall of Famer. I'd love to see that rectified, though. Because I think Bob Meusel has been overlooked long enough. He played almost 100 years ago and died 40 years ago. I think it's safe to say he's long overdue.
They changed the structure of the Veterans Committee a few years ago, meaning players from earlier eras will be reviewed much less frequently. As a result, Bob Meusel can't be considered until the "Early Baseball" committee meets in 2020. When they vote, I hope they give him a serious look. Because Jack Morris isn't the only person I think belongs in the Baseball Hall of Fame. Bob Meusel belongs there, too.
Tuesday, May 2, 2017
No World Record Reset
The track & field doping saga took another turn today. IAAF President Seb Coe has put forth a radical proposal, backed by European Athletics, that would basically reset all of the sport's world records. They're going to present this to the IAAF Council at the World Championships in August with the hopes that it'll be adopted. My hope is that it isn't. Because this "solution" isn't the answer.
This whole conversation is a direct result of the mess that the sport is currently embroiled in. It's why no Russian has been allowed to compete internationally in more than a year and why no one knows who "won" Olympic medals from London or Beijing anymore. The European powers that be (who are, by far, the most outspoken on the doping issue) also feel that the world records set during this period are tainted, which is why they essentially want to start from scratch.
Under this proposal, a world record would have to fit three criteria in order to be recognized. It must take place in an approved international competition, the athlete must participate in a certain number of doping tests in the months leading up to the event, and their doping sample is stored and available for retesting for 10 years. They also suggested that if the record-setting athlete is ever implicated in doping, their record is taken away, even if the violation has no bearing on the record (for example, a 2017 positive test would still wipe out a record-setting performance from 2014).
It's definitely radical. But it's an overcorrection, and you know it'll face plenty of legal challenges if it goes through. Fortunately, Europe needs the rest of the world to agree in order to get it passed, and I'm not sure that'll happen. Either way, it shouldn't happen. Because this proposal is fraught with potential problems.
For starters, the IAAF only began saving blood samples in 2005. That would automatically reset any world record set prior to 12 years ago, which is completely preposterous. Especially since some of those records are among the most iconic in the sport. And despite the fact that we can't prove that those record-setters weren't clean.
That logic escapes me. Even those who've done nothing wrong would be lumped in with Marion Jones and Ben Johnson. Yes, there are some questionable records out there (the Chinese women's distance records, the women's 800 record), but there are also plenty of world record-holders who don't deserve to have their achievements taken away (for really no good reason). And some of these are among the most iconic performances in the history of sports.
And I'd bet even if you reset the world records, those will still be the iconic marks people chase. High jumping eight feet, just like Javier Sotomayor did in 1991. Going past 60 feet in the triple jump, which only Jonathan Edwards has done. FloJo's untouchable 10.49. Trying to come anywhere near Usain Bolt's greatness (which, presumably, would stay on the books since they were set after 2005).
Then there's the single greatest track & field competition of all time. The men's long jump at the 1991 World Championships, where Mike Powell and Carl Lewis both surpassed Bob Beamon's unthinkable mark from the 1968 Olympics. Beamon's mark stood for 23 years. Powell's is on it's 26th. No one has come close since. In fact, those remain the three longest jumps in history.
To be clear, all of the existing world records wouldn't be wiped out. They would still be listed as "all-time bests," but the best performance after a certain designated point would become the record. When that point is remains unclear. Either way, it's stupid. In fact, I'd think athletes would have even more motivation to wipe out a record they view as tainted instead of just being given one.
Jarrion Lawson had the world-leading mark in the men's long jump in 2016. He jumped 8.58 meters. That's more than 30 centimeters less than Beamon, and nearly 40 less than Powell! Yet you want to act like that's all of a sudden the world record?! That's just insulting. You're acting like two of the single greatest efforts in track & field history never happened. Just because you don't think the drug testing in 1968 or 1991 was good enough?
They need to stop trying to rewrite history. This is like when Commissioner Ford Frick decided in the middle of the 1961 season that Roger Maris could only break Babe Ruth's record if he did it the same number of games. So Maris' 61 had an asterisk next to it for how many years before everyone realized it was ridiculous and Bart Giamatti removed it? And, despite the protestations of many a sportswriter who thinks they should, they haven't made any indication that the single-season and career home run records don't belong to Barry Bonds.
My solution is to leave it alone. Times change. Drug testing has become more sophisticated as technology has improved. Everyone knows that. And that's not a reason to penalize the sports all-time greats. Why? Because they born at the wrong time. How is that their fault?
If you want to adopt this criteria moving forward, be my guest. That actually sounds pretty reasonable. But you can't touch the existing record book. World records are a part of the sport's history. You can't pretend that history never happened just because it's more convenient for you.
This whole conversation is a direct result of the mess that the sport is currently embroiled in. It's why no Russian has been allowed to compete internationally in more than a year and why no one knows who "won" Olympic medals from London or Beijing anymore. The European powers that be (who are, by far, the most outspoken on the doping issue) also feel that the world records set during this period are tainted, which is why they essentially want to start from scratch.
Under this proposal, a world record would have to fit three criteria in order to be recognized. It must take place in an approved international competition, the athlete must participate in a certain number of doping tests in the months leading up to the event, and their doping sample is stored and available for retesting for 10 years. They also suggested that if the record-setting athlete is ever implicated in doping, their record is taken away, even if the violation has no bearing on the record (for example, a 2017 positive test would still wipe out a record-setting performance from 2014).
It's definitely radical. But it's an overcorrection, and you know it'll face plenty of legal challenges if it goes through. Fortunately, Europe needs the rest of the world to agree in order to get it passed, and I'm not sure that'll happen. Either way, it shouldn't happen. Because this proposal is fraught with potential problems.
For starters, the IAAF only began saving blood samples in 2005. That would automatically reset any world record set prior to 12 years ago, which is completely preposterous. Especially since some of those records are among the most iconic in the sport. And despite the fact that we can't prove that those record-setters weren't clean.
That logic escapes me. Even those who've done nothing wrong would be lumped in with Marion Jones and Ben Johnson. Yes, there are some questionable records out there (the Chinese women's distance records, the women's 800 record), but there are also plenty of world record-holders who don't deserve to have their achievements taken away (for really no good reason). And some of these are among the most iconic performances in the history of sports.
And I'd bet even if you reset the world records, those will still be the iconic marks people chase. High jumping eight feet, just like Javier Sotomayor did in 1991. Going past 60 feet in the triple jump, which only Jonathan Edwards has done. FloJo's untouchable 10.49. Trying to come anywhere near Usain Bolt's greatness (which, presumably, would stay on the books since they were set after 2005).
Then there's the single greatest track & field competition of all time. The men's long jump at the 1991 World Championships, where Mike Powell and Carl Lewis both surpassed Bob Beamon's unthinkable mark from the 1968 Olympics. Beamon's mark stood for 23 years. Powell's is on it's 26th. No one has come close since. In fact, those remain the three longest jumps in history.
To be clear, all of the existing world records wouldn't be wiped out. They would still be listed as "all-time bests," but the best performance after a certain designated point would become the record. When that point is remains unclear. Either way, it's stupid. In fact, I'd think athletes would have even more motivation to wipe out a record they view as tainted instead of just being given one.
Jarrion Lawson had the world-leading mark in the men's long jump in 2016. He jumped 8.58 meters. That's more than 30 centimeters less than Beamon, and nearly 40 less than Powell! Yet you want to act like that's all of a sudden the world record?! That's just insulting. You're acting like two of the single greatest efforts in track & field history never happened. Just because you don't think the drug testing in 1968 or 1991 was good enough?
They need to stop trying to rewrite history. This is like when Commissioner Ford Frick decided in the middle of the 1961 season that Roger Maris could only break Babe Ruth's record if he did it the same number of games. So Maris' 61 had an asterisk next to it for how many years before everyone realized it was ridiculous and Bart Giamatti removed it? And, despite the protestations of many a sportswriter who thinks they should, they haven't made any indication that the single-season and career home run records don't belong to Barry Bonds.
My solution is to leave it alone. Times change. Drug testing has become more sophisticated as technology has improved. Everyone knows that. And that's not a reason to penalize the sports all-time greats. Why? Because they born at the wrong time. How is that their fault?
If you want to adopt this criteria moving forward, be my guest. That actually sounds pretty reasonable. But you can't touch the existing record book. World records are a part of the sport's history. You can't pretend that history never happened just because it's more convenient for you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)