Series Over, Time For Free Agency

Now that the World Series is over, it's time for the Hot Stove league to get heated up.  And, unlike last year, there are plenty of marquee names out there for the signing.  In fact, this year's free agent class is probably the reason why last year's Hot Stove was so lukewarm (seriously, everyone knew J.D. Martinez was going to the Red Sox, so why did it take three months?).

This year's class is headlined by Harper and Machado.  But they're not the only superstars who'll potentially be changing teams this winter.  And the money is definitely going to flow.  Because we're talking about impact guys in their prime.

Will we have another situation like Martinez and Boston, an absolutely perfect storm that led to a historic season?  Or will we get another Eric Hosmer in San Diego?  And where are all these guys headed anyway?

Bryce Harper: I read an article on MLB.com that actually made a pretty compelling argument why Harper should sign a one-year deal.  It's probably not going to happen, but the argument for it was convincing.  Harper won't command the $400 million contract that some were predicting.  But he's still going to get a lot.  Keep in mind he's only 26, so an eight-year deal takes him to 34, when he'll still be productive.  He'll have a lot of suitors, but the Nationals know he's the franchise and they've got the money to keep him.  He stays in Washington.  Nationals.

Manny Machado: When the Dodgers traded for Machado, it made complete sense.  And he helped them get that second straight NL pennant.  But it seems unlikely he stays in LA with Corey Seager returning and Justin Turner at third.  I think Machado would rather play shortstop anyway.  Which limits the number of teams that have the need and the resources for his services.  The Phillies were aggressive in going after him before he ended up being traded to the Dodgers instead.  This time I think they get him.  Phillies.

Clayton Kershaw: He'd be an idiot not to opt out, which is why I'm including him here.  He isn't going anywhere, though.  The reason Kershaw should opt out is so that he can get more years and more money tacked onto his deal, kinda like the way A-Rod did when he opted out of his Yankee contract (that they're finally no longer paying for).  All to guarantee that Kershaw stays in LA his entire career, which is what both he and the Dodgers want.  Dodgers.

Patrick Corbin: Of all the pitchers who'll definitely be available on the open market, Corbin will be the most sought-after.  And Brian Cashman's going to make a full-court press to get him.  The only thing worse than seeing the Red Sox win 108 games and the World Series was getting their butts kicked by them in the Division Series.  That Division Series exposed the Yankees' biggest weakness.  Their starting rotation is in major need of an upgrade.  And the 29-year-old Corbin fits the bill.  His ridiculous offer from the Yankees will be tough to turn down.  Yankees.

Dallas Keuchel: Corbin will likely set the market for Keuchel, who I think is about 50-50 to return to Houston.  The Astros will probably try to keep him, but he'll likely get offered more money elsewhere.  He'll be the fall back option for the teams who don't get Corbin (or Arizona if they lose him).  Keuchel doesn't have Cy Young stuff anymore, but he's definitely a serviceable No. 2 starter for a contender, which is better than being the No. 3 in Houston.  Braves.

Daniel Murphy: The Cubs have expressed an interest in keeping him.  And it would make sense for both parties.  They're over Addison Russell, so they can move Baez to short and install Murphy as the everyday second baseman.  He was an NLCS MVP in New York and a perennial All-Star in Washington.  He'll get plenty of offers, but it would be a surprise if he doesn't stay in Chicago.  Cubs.

Nathan Eovaldi: Man, he sure made himself some money during the World Series, didn't he?  Eovaldi's injury history should be a cause for concern, but his performance last week is going to make somebody overlook that.  Evidently he wants to return to Boston, so it'll be interesting to see what kind of an offer he gets from the Red Sox.  Or if he leaves money/years on the table to stay there.  My guess is someone overpays him to be their No. 1 or 2 starter.  Padres.

Mike Moustakas: Last year, he was one of the biggest victims of the owners' lack of action during free agency.  Moustakas ended up re-signing with the Royals on a one-year deal that paid him less than he was making.  Although, he was able to escape and jump into a pennant race in Milwaukee.  Whether or not the Brewers make a push to keep him is the real question.  And where he'll go if they don't is just as much of a question.  Because plenty of teams will be interested.  Braves.

Craig Kimbrel: Will he stay in Boston?  Most likely.  Because if the Red Sox don't bring him back, they'll be in the market for a closer to replace him (Zach Britton?).  Kimbrel's going to demand the same type of big money deal that fellow All-Star closers Aroldis Chapman and Kenley Jansen have in recent years.  It might not be the same type of deal as when he first went to Boston from Atlanta, but he'll still get paid like the elite closer he is.  Red Sox.

Josh Donaldson: His injury history makes him a risk.  But if he's healthy, it's easy to foresee him returning to his All-Star form.  That little two-month exodus to Cleveland was odd.  Because it required the Indians moving one of their best players, Jose Ramirez, out of position.  As a result, I don't think Donaldson returns to the Indians.  He's a guy who thrives in smaller markets anyway.  If Moustakas leaves Milwaukee, that's a logical landing place for Donaldson, who'll probably command less money, too.  Brewers.

Yasmani Grandal: After losing his starting job during the postseason in each of the last two years, it would seem to make sense that the Dodgers will move on with the much cheaper Austin Barnes as their starting catcher.  A change of scenery might be good for Grandal, too.  Because there are plenty of teams who could use a switch-hitting catcher with power.  Going to the AL where they can hide his defensive issues by having him DH twice a week sounds good.  But I think if they can re-sign Harper (which I think they will), the Nationals try to make one more run and overpay him the same way they overpaid Matt Wieters two years ago.  Nationals.

Michael Brantley: Another free agent whose injury history could limit the interest in him.  But when he's healthy, this guy can flat-out hit.  He's been in Cleveland so long that it's hard to picture him in another uniform.  But whether or not he returns to the Indians could depend on they offers he gets elsewhere.  Brantley almost seems better served to take on a platoon/bench role, but he'll almost certainly get starter money with the expectation to play.  Somebody will give it to him.  Mariners.

And that's just a sampling of some of the top free agents out there (again, I'm assuming Kershaw exercises his opt-out clause).  That doesn't even include the mid-level guys like A.J. Pollock or the abundance of available relievers.  So, last year's Lukewarm Stove has been replaced by this year's Hot Stove.  We've got superstars on the open market.  And they're going to get paid!  Big time!  The question is, who's going to pay them?

Week 8, NFL 2018

Joe Buck is everywhere!  So much for him not doing football during the baseball playoffs.  It was quite a surprise to hear him on Thursday night on his World Series off day.  Yet, while everyone else was flying cross country, he made a stop midway through and did the Thursday night football game,as the Texans continue to be white hot.  I wouldn't be shocked to see him try to do the Rams/Dodgers doubleheader on Sunday, either (although, I think the distance between the LA Coliseum and Dodger Stadium makes that practically impossible).

Thursday Night: Houston (Win)

Eagles (3-4) vs. Jaguars (3-4): Jacksonville-London came thisclose to getting a Super Bowl rematch, which I'm sure is something the NFL never saw coming when they decided the Eagles would be Jacksonville's London opponent.  As it is, neither one has been playing up to their 2017 form of late.  The Eagles take one step forward, two steps back, while the Jaguars aren't sneaking up on anybody anymore and have lost three straight as a result.  They really do treat London like their second home, though (hence their annual home game at Wembley), and they play extremely well Across the Pond.  That should continue.

Jets (3-4) at Bears (3-3): Chicago-Chicago has been one of the most surprising contenders in the league this season.  They hung in there with New England last week and even had a chance to win it.  I have a feeling it's gonna be like that most of the season.  And the NFC North's gonna be a dogfight as a result.  The Jets, meanwhile, got a reality check from the Vikings last week.  Now they go on the road for the first time in a month.  And they haven't won on the road since the opener.

Buccaneers (3-3) at Bengals (4-3): Cincinnati-Both the Bucs and Bengals are right up there with the Bears on that surprise contender list.  Sure, Cincinnati got smacked last week, but that's because they played in primetime and for some reason they just can't get over that hump when playing in front of a national audience.  I don't know why, but that seems to be a mental hurdle the Bengals simply can't overcome for whatever reason.  The good news is they're back playing one of the 1:00 regional games this week.

Seahawks (3-3) at Lions (3-3): Detroit-Lions vs. AFC East: 2-1.  Lions vs. NFC: 1-2.  Although, that win was over the Packers, so I don't know how good a gauge that actually is.  I do know this, though.  The Seahawks team that beat the Raiders in London looked like the Seahawks of old.  We'll see if they were able to carry it over from their bye week.  We'll also see if Detroit is able to beat a team that isn't in Matt Patricia's old division.

Broncos (3-4) at Chiefs (6-1): Kansas City-Kansas City's not playing on Sunday night?!  What's going on?!  Chiefs-Broncos I was a Monday nighter in Week 4, and that's the game where Patrick Mahomes first showed us that he's really something special.  That comeback.  Against the Broncos' defense.  In Denver.  It was quite impressive.  What can he do against them when they come visit his place?

Redskins (4-2) at Giants (1-6): Washington-Well, it sure looks like the Giants are cashing in their chips and trying to get Saquon a shiny new quarterback to play with in the 2019 Draft.  Why else would they be trading every defensive playmaker they have?  So it looks like there are a bunch more losses in store for a 1-6 team that's actually not as bad as its record (at least wasn't as bad as its record).  I still have no idea whether or not the Redskins are actually good.  But they're 4-2, and it's about to become 5-2.

Browns (2-4-1) at Steelers (3-2-1): Pittsburgh-When they met in Week 1 and had that ridiculous tie, the Browns really should've won.  And it was our first indication that Cleveland is actually going to be competitive this season.  Which they were until that clunker against the Chargers.  They made up for it last week, though, with their weekly overtime.  Browns, again, games are 60 minutes long, not 70!  Pittsburgh, meanwhile, is doing its usual midseason turnaround after a slow start.

Ravens (4-3) at Panthers (4-2): Carolina-The Panthers are really good at playing to the level of their competition.  Which means they play a lot of close games.  They end up winning them most of the time, though, which is why they're 4-2.  Meanwhile, you've got a Ravens teams at a crossroads.  How long can they play both Joe Flacco and Lamar Jackson?  I think they want Jackson to be the new Cam Newton.  But he'll watch the original version get the better of them.

Colts (2-5) at Raiders (1-5): Indianapolis-How do you win a game 37-5?  Yes, I know, a field goal and a safety.  But it's just such an odd score to see at the end of a game!  This is the easy part of the Colts' schedule.  Bills last week, Raiders this week.  It still doesn't mean Indy is any good.  But that 3-5 record is sure gonna look better than Oakland's 1-6.  The Raiders will be battling the Giants and Cardinals for the No. 1 pick all season.  Jon Gruden has lost the team.

Packers (3-2-1) at Rams (7-0): Rams-It's been quite a sports weekend in LA, and it'll be capped by Sunday's doubleheader of the best NFL game this week followed by Kershaw vs. Sale in the potential World Series clincher.  The Rams have a few tough ones coming up, starting with their matchup against Green Bay.  I'm expecting this one to be a shootout.  Except the Packers still haven't proven they can win on the road.  The Rams won't go undefeated.  But they will get to 8-0.

49ers (1-6) at Cardinals (1-6): Arizona-Another season series that'll be done by the end of October.  If not for the 49ers, Arizona would still be winless.  And, since the wins will be few and far between for these two, this'll be both of their best last chance for a while.  (Although the 49ers have the Raiders and Giants next, so they could actually be on a three-game winning streak if they get this one.)  Since it wasn't too long ago that the Cardinals won the first time these two played, why wouldn't I expect them to do it again?

Saints (5-1) at Vikings (4-2-1): New Orleans-We all remember what happened the last time these two met.  The Saints sure do.  And New Orleans is a better team this season.  In fact, I think the Saints may be the third-best in the NFL behind the Rams and Chiefs.  I've got a feeling that even with that Kershaw-Sale matchup, this Sunday night game will draw a bigger audience than Dodgers-Red Sox.  It's a good matchup.  And it's one that I think New Orleans will win.

Patriots (5-2) at Bills (2-5): New England-For some reason, the NFL decided it would be a good idea to show one of the Patriots' annual annihilations the Bills on a Monday night.  Although, it is the first Monday night game in Buffalo in quite a while, and Bills fans are some of the best in the NFL, so they deserve it.  And who knows?  Maybe they'll surprise us.  After all, the Patriots have already lost road games to both the Jaguars and Lions this year.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-5
Overall: 64-42-2

Outplayed, Outmanaged, Out Everythinged

The Red Sox wouldn't have won the 2004 World Series without Dave Roberts.  And he's doing a good job of making sure they win the 2018 World Series also.  Because for as much as the Dodgers have been outplayed, outpitched, out-everythinged in the series, they've also been outmanaged.  Badly.  And not by the Red Sox.  Roberts has done a great job of outmanaging himself.

I found it amazing that in the 115-year history of the World Series, no team had ever started an entirely right-handed-hitting lineup until the Dodgers did so in Game 1.  Then they did it again in Game 2.

This wasn't the first time that Roberts has done this.  In fact, he did it for most of September and throughout the NLCS.  The Dodgers are perhaps the deepest team in baseball, as evidence by the fact that they can start two completely different lineups based on whether it's a right-handed or left-handed starter.  Roberts can take advantage of his team's versatility and put them pretty much anywhere on the field, too (the Dodgers used four different second basemen in Game 2 alone).

Except the problem with this strategy was exposed in the first two games.  It works in the National League, where you can exploit matchups and use pinch hitters or make double switches based on situation.  When you have a DH, though, you have no reason to empty your bench by the seventh inning.  This is the World Series, you don't have to make sure everybody gets to play!  (The Dodgers have 13 position players on the roster, and they've all had at least one plate appearance in each game.)

Especially when you're sitting guys who, lefty-on-lefty or not, should be in the lineup everyday.  Cody Bellinger was the Rookie of the Year last season and MVP of the NLCS.  He has three at-bats in the World Series!  So does Max Muncy, who hit more home runs per at bat than anyone else in the Majors.  In fact, the Dodgers hit the second-most home runs in baseball this season...and they left their top four home run hitters (Muncy, Bellinger, Joc Pederson and Yasmani Grandal) on the bench to start each of the first two games!

Instead of Bellinger and Muncy, Roberts started Kike Hernandez and David Freese.  Hernandez hasn't gotten a hit since, it seems, last year's World Series.  Freese, the World Series her for the Cardinals seven years ago who you didn't even realize was still playing, does have three hits in the series.  But he shouldn't be hitting third!  And Freese hasn't exactly played a Gold Glove-caliber first base either.  In the first inning Game 1, he let a Mookie Betts popup drop, and Betts eventually singled before scoring the first run of the series.

Let's not forget, too, that the Dodgers had an extra person in the lineup.  Yet they still kept Bellinger and Muncy on the bench, opting instead to DH Matt Kemp and keep Yasiel Puig, who doesn't hit lefties well for some reason, in right field.  Although, I actually agreed with that decision.  Puig is far superior defensively (he's also the only real right fielder on the roster) and Kemp's likely only to hit anyway, so it makes sense to just insert him in the DH slot and mix-and-match everywhere else.

You want to sit Pederson against the lefties, fine.  He didn't start when Keuchel pitched in last year's World Series, either.  And he's a guy you can have pinch hit for basically anyone.  Grandal not starting didn't raise any eyebrows, either.  He looked like Gary Sanchez behind the plate during the two NLCS games he did start, so it's reasonable to think Austin Barnes had taking the catching job anyway.

But there's no reason that Bellinger and Muncy should've been kept out of the lineup.  Especially Bellinger, who might be the second-best all-around player on the team behind Manny Machado (and played 162 of the Dodgers' 163 games this season, too).  And if he's going to be in center field, Muncy should be at first base.

Then there's his pitching changes  Evidently the Dodgers didn't use up all of the minutes in their plan calling the bullpen during the NLCS.  Because they made plenty of pitching changes in Fenway, too, using five pitchers in Game 1 and six in Game 2.

Not all of those pitching moves worked out, though.  Especially in Game 1.  The Dodgers tied the game in the top of the fifth, then Kershaw comes back out for the bottom of the fifth and gives up back-to-back hits to Betts and Beninteindi.  So Ryan Madson comes in, and he promptly walks the bases loaded before allowing both inherited runners to score.  Same situation in Game 2.  Same pitcher.  Same batter in Steve Pearce.  This time Madson walks him on four pitches to force in the tying run before giving up the game-winning two-run single to J.D. Martinez.

Believe it or not, those weren't even the worst pitching changes Roberts made in Fenway.  No, that was in the seventh inning of Game 1.  The Dodgers had just cut Boston's lead to 5-4 and Pedro Baez is throwing gas.  He'd intentionally walked Martinez and struck out the other two batters he'd faced.  But, with two on and two out and Rafael Devers coming up, Roberts takes Baez out and brings in lefty Alex Wood.  Alex Cora counters by having Eduardo Nunez pinch hit, and he promptly launches a three-run blast over the Monster to effectively end the game.  

Either Roberts didn't anticipate Cora going to Nunez after Roberts brought in the lefty or he liked the Wood vs. Nunez matchup better than Baez vs. Devers.  Either way, he was wrong.  Sometimes the best pitching changes are the ones you don't make.  (And don't forget how badly he screwed up his pitching changes in last year's World Series, too.)

With the Red Sox starting right-handers Rick Porcello and Nathan Eovaldi in the next two games, Roberts will finally do something he should've done all along.  Start Bellinger, Muncy and Pederson!  

And if the Dodgers do win these next two games, all of a sudden the series is tied, with Kershaw pitching at home in Game 5.  So, there's still a chance they can make this a series.  But the only way they can is if they actually put their best players on the field at the start of the game (not in the sixth inning when they're already losing).  Winning four of the next five against this Red Sox team is a big enough challenge without having to overcome their own manager's poor decisions, as well.

The Relentless Red Sox vs. the Dodgers' Destiny

So...after six and a half months, we're left with two of the marquee franchises in baseball.  MLB sure got the World Series it wanted with the Red Sox and the Dodgers.  The last time these two met in the World Series, Babe Ruth threw a 14-inning complete game in Game 2 (yet the Red Sox still play in the same ballpark as they did then). 

Now, 102 years later, they meet again, as Boston looks for its fourth title in 15 years and the Dodgers look to follow in the 2015 Royals' footsteps by winning the title a year after dropping Game 7.  And this is probably the best matchup we could've asked for.  The Red Sox have been the best team in baseball all season, and they've continued to be just as dominant in the playoffs.  But if there's any National League team that might actually have a chance at beating them, it might be the Dodgers.

Don't get me wrong.  Boston is the favorite and deserves to be.  The Red Sox have shown us throughout the playoffs why they've won 115 games this season.  They're relentless.  You can't get these guys out!  Even if you get the first two outs and have two strikes on the third hitter with no runners on, they still find a way to score two.  Then you shoot yourself in the foot even more by walking guys in front of Betts and Martinez.

That's why the Red Sox are in this position.  And they've found a way to have their one weakness--the bullpen--not be a weakness at all.  It turns out (Tampa Bay Rays, please take not), you don't really need a bullpen if your starter gives you seven, then you can turn it over to your All-Star closer.  And, when all else fails, just use your other starters in relief.

The Dodgers used their starters in relief a lot during the NLCS, but that was mainly because there was a pitching change every 11.5 seconds in that series.  And, frankly, Kershaw and Hill out of the bullpen was their best way of countering Milwaukee's usage of Hader, Knebel and Jeffress...and it worked. 

They also relied on the long ball, which has been their M.O. all season long.  Which is why I think the Dodgers have a chance in this series.  That is, if they actually can hit the ball out.  If they can't, they might suffer the same fate against the Red Sox as the Yankees did. 

One advantage they have over the Yankees, though, is that they can counter Boston's strengths.  They've got three left-handed starters, and the Red Sox struggle against lefties (which is odd, considering almost their entire lineup is right-handed).  And Dave Roberts has used a left-handed lineup and a right-handed lineup for like two months now.  He's got interchangeable parts, which gives him a lot of possibilities and creates favorable matchups later in the game (provided he doesn't run out of players, which he almost did in Game 2 vs. the Brewers).

Because of that, the Dodgers can simply insert Matt Kemp at DH and not miss a beat.  The Red Sox, on the other hand, have to figure something out for the games at Dodger Stadium, where J.D. Martinez will have to play the outfield.  They've been toying with the idea of moving Mookie Betts to second base for those games.  And, if you're toying with an idea before the World Series, it means you're going to it.  (Remember when the Cubs "toyed" with the idea of activating Kyle Schwarber so he could DH two years ago?) 

Which is why it was smart for Roberts to tab Walker Buehler, his only right-hander, as the Game 3 starter.  He wasn't going to make it easy on his former teammate Alex Cora by making it so he could just take Benintendi or Bradley out. 

I actually really like the way the Dodgers lined up their pitching for the entire series.  Roberts was apparently "debating" between Kershaw and Rich Hill for Game 1, but I don't think there was any doubt it was going to be Kershaw.  That one inning in Game 7 didn't take anything out of him, and the Red Sox are starting Sale, so you have to go ace vs. ace.  But if you start Kershaw in 2 &6 instead of 1 & 5, then he's probably not available in relief in Game 7.  And holding Hill until Game 4 means he's available out of the bullpen in all four Fenway games.

Nathan Eovaldi and Rick Porcello have been great for Boston.  The question marks in their rotation right now are Chris Sale and David Price.  Sale took the loss in Game 1 of the ALCS (Boston's only loss in the series) before being hospitalized with an illness.  He's fine now, but add that to his lack of work over the last two months, and you've gotta wonder how much he can give them against Kershaw in Game 1.  Then it's Price in Game 2.  He finally got his first postseason win in the clincher against Houston, but does one game make up for a career's worth of postseason struggles?

We know that the occasion won't be too big for either team.  Only one member of the Red Sox (Xander Bogaerts) was on the team when they last won the World Series five years ago.  But, they have plenty of other players who have World Series experience with other teams.  The Dodgers, meanwhile, were here last year.  Sure, some of the faces have changed (Manny Machado being the most notable new name).  But they've dedicated their entire season to getting redemption for last year, and they're just four wins away from doing it.

Those four wins will be very hard to come by, though.  Because as good as the Dodgers may be, the Red Sox are simply better.  They've been the best team in baseball all season long, and, if possible, they've been even better in the playoffs.  They played two 100-win teams and dominated both of them.  They're 7-2 in the postseason!  The Dodgers will need to play four perfect games to beat them, and even that might not be enough.  Twenty years from now, we might be talking about the 2018 Red Sox as one of those all-time great teams.

Including the Wild Card Games, seven of the eight postseason series this year have been clinched on the road.  And the Red Sox are undefeated on the road this postseason.  So it would be easy to say they win in four or five.  I'm giving the Dodgers two games, though, which means the Red Sox close it out at Fenway.  Boston wins its fourth title since 2004 in six games, and the Dodgers join the 2010-11 Rangers as back-to-back World Series losers.

Week 7, NFL 2018

Believe it or not, we're more than a quarter of the way thru the NFL season.  And we still don't really know that much.  We know the Rams, Chiefs, Patriots and Saints are good, but that's about it.  And we still get at least one random result (on each side of the spectrum) every week.  Like who saw a 40-7 Dallas win over Jacksonville coming?  Or the Jets putting up 42 points, regardless of who they were playing?

So, what surprises are we in for this week?  The Thursday night game doesn't qualify, even though I'm not sure how many people expected that 45-point explosion by the Broncos, but Arizona is so bad it couldn't have been too much of a shock that Denver blew them out.  Which means Week 7 probably has another trick or two up its sleeve.

Thursday Night: Denver (Win)

Titans (3-3) vs. Chargers (4-2): Chargers-This will be the Chargers' best-attended home game of the year.  It's sad that they had to go all the way to London to do it.  Very interesting comments that came out this week.  Although, it's not exactly surprising to find out no one actually wants the Chargers in LA.  The NFL wanted a team back in LA and LA wanted the Rams back.  They said nothing about a second team.  And they really didn't want the Chargers.  So, to sum up, LA doesn't want the Chargers, the Chargers don't want to be there, and the NFL doesn't really want them there, either.  Yet here we are.  And simply moving back to San Diego (where they belong) isn't as easy as it sounds.  After all, the main reason they moved north is because San Diego refused to build them the stadium they need (and they did build for the Padres).  A messy situation to say the least.  A messy situation that heads Across the Pond, where they'll move to 5-2 in front of a crowd that isn't 80 percent fans of the other team for a change.

Patriots (4-2) at Bears (3-2): New England-New England needed that win against Kansas City last week.  Because they face another tough one this week against the surprising Bears.  A task that'll get even tougher without a tight end.  I locked in my pick before all of the Patriots' injuries were announced, so I'm officially going with New England.  But I wouldn't be surprised by a Chicago victory here at all.  In fact, if I could change my pick now, I'd definitely be considering it.

Bills (2-4) at Colts (1-5): Buffalo-Frank Reich faces his old team for the first time as a head coach.  There aren't many winnable games on the Colts' schedule, but this definitely is one.  It really depends on which Bills team shows up, though.  Nathan Peterman isn't starting, so Buffalo knows that at least all of the quarterback's passes will be thrown to the right team.  If they get the defense, too, this should be a victory for the Bills.

Lions (2-3) at Dolphins (4-2): Miami-Miami really showed some character in last week's overtime win against the Bears.  And they're looking like a legitimate contender in the AFC.  Detroit, meanwhile, had last week off after Mason Crosby gifted them a victory in Week 5.  So we still don't know where the Lions stand.  Are they the team that beat the Patriots or the team that got smacked by the Jets?  I think it's probably somewhere in between.  Either way, I don't think it translates to Miami.  The Dolphins go to 5-2.

Vikings (3-2-1) at Jets (3-3): Minnesota-Suddenly we're talking about the New York Jets as one of the hottest teams in football.  They've won two straight, averaging 38 points, and look to finish off a sweep of their three-game homestand.  Of course, Minnesota's better than both Denver and Indianapolis, but the Vikings know they've got a battle on their hands.  Minnesota has enough weapons to hold off Darnold and Co. enough to get the win.  But this is the same Vikings team that was held to six points at home against the Bills, so they'll need to get some sort of offensive production.

Panthers (3-2) at Eagles (3-3): Philadelphia-The Eagles finally looked like the defending Super Bowl champions last week.  Although, how much of that had to do with the fact they were playing the Giants?  Even still, their offense appears to finally be clicking.  And the 10 days off since that Thursday night game can only have helped.  Carolina, meanwhile, concludes a three-week tour of the NFC East that has had mixed results.  They beat the Giants on a 62-yard field goal, then got badly outplayed in Washington.  I think they get outplayed in Philadelphia, too.

Browns (2-3-1) at Buccaneers (2-3): Cleveland-Cleveland played its first bad game of the season last week.  Their first five games were competitive, but they just didn't have it last week against the Chargers.  Fortunately, Tampa Bay is a good team to face when you're looking for whatever it is you're lacking.  The Bucs are a completely different team than the one that started 2-0.  If this is a shootout, which it probably will be since, let's face it, we're talking about an NFC South defense, it should be advantage Cleveland.  As long as Baker Mayfield remembers which color his team is wearing.

Texans (3-3) at Jaguars (3-3): Houston-After two games, the Jaguars were undefeated, had just beaten the Patriots, and looked like they might be one of the best teams in the NFL.  The Texans, meanwhile, were in last place and two games back.  Fast forward four weeks and a lot has changed.  Jacksonville has dropped three out of four and Houston is rolling, having won three straight (including one that actually didn't go to overtime!).  I'll stick with the one that's trending up.

Saints (4-1) at Ravens (4-2): New Orleans-If not for the Rams, we might be talking about the Saints as the best team in the NFC.  That offense is no joke.  The Saints scored 40 points in a Week 1 loss (their only loss of the year), and they've gone 43, 33, 43 in their last three games.  Baltimore shut out the Titans last week, but this New Orleans offense is on a whole different level.  Can they hold the Saints in check enough?  I don't think so.

Rams (6-0) at 49ers (1-5): Rams-NBC flexed this one out of Sunday night, which is somewhat surprising since the Rams are still undefeated.  But I guess a Garoppolo-less 49er team isn't really appealing enough to warrant keeping this game in prime time.  Especially since it looks like the Rams are going to easily move to 7-0.  The 49ers have been competitive against good teams, but it hasn't been enough to get a W.  Should be the same deal here.

Cowboys (3-3) at Redskins (3-2): Dallas-A Cowboys-Redskins national late game on CBS!  Is it 1985?!  It's just odd to see a marquee NFC matchup on CBS.  Especially one that's usually showcased in prime time.  (They don't meet in prime time at all this year; the rematch is on Thanksgiving.)  After that impressive performance last week, Dallas is in a position to move into first place.  As long as they play like that again.  The Redskins have been schizophrenic all year, too.  They got embarrassed in New Orleans, then bounced back with a very solid effort against the Panthers.  So, it'll really depend on which team shows up.  As if they need any more motivation to get up for a Cowboys-Redskins game.

Bengals (4-2) at Chiefs (5-1): Kansas City-After dropping from the ranks of the unbeaten, Kansas City makes its second consecutive Sunday night appearance.  They play a surprising Bengals team that also lost last week...to the thorn in their side known as the Steelers.  A win here would make a big statement for Cincinnati, though, and it would give them the tiebreak over the Chiefs for playoff positioning.  I don't think it'll come to that, though.  The Chiefs should rebound.

Giants (1-5) at Falcons (2-4): Atlanta-Is Week 7 too early to call a game a must win?  I know I've been saying that about the Falcons all season, but this time I really mean it.  They can't lose at home to Saquon Barkley and those 52 other guys.  And I thought the Giants were bad last year.  But I'm beginning to think the Eli Manning haters are on to something.  Odell Beckham really needs to just shut up and play, too.  Like I said, the Giants are a mess.  The Falcons can't lose to them if they have any hope of hanging with New Orleans in the NFC South.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 11-4
Overall: 55-37-2

The Youth Olympics End

Over the last two weeks, the Youth Olympic Games took place in Buenos Aires.  This was the third edition of the Youth Olympics, which are for athletes aged 14-18 and the brainchild of former IOC President Jacques Rogge.  But questions over the event's relevance and lack of enthusiasm have led some to wonder whether or not the Youth Olympics have a place beyond the 2022 edition in Dakar (which wasn't even officially confirmed until they were already in Buenos Aires).

To be honest, I never quite understood the concept of the Youth Olympics in the first place.  One of Rogge's initial reasons was getting youth involved in sport, but, as critics point out, the athletes in the Youth Olympics are already elite and on a path to the regular Olympics, so how much are you actually encouraging other young athletes to participate?  And do those at or approaching world-class level really need another competition?

According to the IOC, the Youth Olympics also give cities and countries that might not be equipped to host an Olympics an opportunity to host an "Olympic" event.  To an extent this is true.  There are fewer athletes, fewer events and stricter cost-controlling factors designed to make the Youth Olympics cheaper.  And they have brought the Olympic brand to new places (Singapore and Nanjing were the first two hosts).  But Nanjing went so over-the-top that they were essentially hosting a mini-Olympics, which kinda goes against everything they preach.

One of the IOC's other favorite things about the Youth Olympics is that the program is different than the regular Olympics.  Instead, they only have events that "appeal to a younger demographic."  So, instead of 14 different rowing events, they have things like break dancing, which got extensive TV coverage during these Youth Olympics.  They also featured some different disciplines in traditional Olympic sports (instead of soccer, they had futsal, the indoor version) and tried some new events within the existing Olympic program.

Some of these new events have worked.  So well, in fact, that they've graduated to the regular Olympics.  This includes some of the mixed events that the IOC loves (more on that in a minute), as well as things like 3x3 basketball, which has been the only type of basketball ever featured at the Youth Olympics and will make its debut at the regular Olympics in Tokyo.  Whether or not 3x3 should be in the adult Olympics is a completely different question (the answer is "No").

About halfway through these Youth Olympics, something dawned on me.  The IOC's new obsession is E "sports," which they're talking about including as a medal event as early as Paris 2024.  But the Youth Olympics is the perfect place to try out E "sports" first.  After all, if the whole purpose of adding video games is to appeal to the youth, wouldn't the youth-oriented competition make sense?  If it works in Dakar, then maybe you consider moving it onto the Olympic program.

However, a vast majority of these different events at the Youth Olympics would never have a place in the regular Olympics.  Break dancing, for example, will never be in the Olympics!  Neither will the dunk contest (also a medal event in basketball).  There are also a ton of mixed team events that aren't just mixed gender, they're mixed nationality.  While that's a cool idea in theory, it would never work in the regular Olympics, where the entire point is competition between countries!

A lot of international federations hate these mixed team events, and not just because of the mixed-nationality element.  They don't like them because of how forced they seem.  The IOC's suddenly all about mixed team events, but some of them do feel like they're being added just for the sake of adding them.  If they come about naturally (like mixed doubles tennis) that's one thing.  But how many of these events are just throwing together people who never train together and will have just a few days of practice before an Olympic medal event?

Perhaps the biggest problem with the Youth Olympics, though, is that they include some sports that aren't on the Olympic program while practically ignoring others that are.  Aquatics at the Youth Olympics only includes swimming & diving.  No water polo, no synchronized swimming.  Beach volleyball is included, while indoor volleyball isn't.  Equestrian only featured jumping, while cycling consisted of BMX and a combined event.  That's it.

There's also a limit on the number of athletes/teams a country can send.  I get that in a certain respect.  It's more inclusive and ensures greater universality.  But it also effects the quality of the competition in certain events.  And you get a distorted medal table because certain nations have larger or smaller teams than they otherwise would if qualification was more open.

This was really the first time that I paid any sort of attention to the Youth Olympics.  I was willing to give them a chance, but I became incredibly turned off by them, for a number of reasons.  And about halfway through, I started to wonder if people would really miss this event if it weren't around.  (I know Argentina has reverse seasons, but the October thing didn't help matters, either.)  I don't think I would. 

The Youth Olympics were a noble idea.  But are they necessary?  Probably not.  They're easy to get lost in the mix, and I don't know if they provide enough value to justify the cost.  The IOC has enough problems.  They don't need the Youth Olympics to give them any more headaches.

Someone Call Triple-A

Something we've known for more than a year has finally become official.  The Syracuse Chiefs are now the Syracuse Mets, complete with a new logo and everything.  The Mets bought the Chiefs last year with the intent to make them their Triple-A team, but they had to wait until this offseason to do it since they were committed to Las Vegas for one final season in 2018.

The player development contracts between Major League and Minor League teams are two- or four-year agreements that are good thru the end of an even year.  But once the even-year season is over, teams are free to change affiliates, with many of those deals (such as the Mets and Syracuse) worked out well in advance.  And now that the 2018 season is over, it's time for the affiliate dance to begin.

Whenever a change is in store, it's generally the MLB team that takes the lead (although not always).  Ideally, it'll work out that the Triple-A affiliate is close enough geographically to the parent club that the travel back-and-forth is relatively easy.  (Seattle and its Triple-A team in Tacoma are so close that a guy could get called up between games of a doubleheader and be there by the third inning!)  But, that's not always the case.  And since every team is required to have a Triple-A affiliate, it can sometimes result in awkward pairings.

That's how the Mets ended up in Las Vegas in the first place.  They were in Buffalo, but Toronto wanted Buffalo and Buffalo wanted Toronto (for obvious reasons).  So the Bisons moved their affiliation to the Blue Jays in 2013.  Which left the Mets homeless and Las Vegas without a parent club, so they had no choice but to pair up.

Six teams are changing Triple-A affiliates in 2019, and this time it's the Nationals (the team the Mets are displacing from Syracuse) that are the odd ones out.  Washington will spend at least the next two seasons with its affiliate in Fresno, which was the only Triple-A city left after everyone else moved around.  And it's painfully clear that arrangement doesn't make much sense.  The 3,000-mile distance between the Nationals and their Triple-A club isn't going to work very well, and I wouldn't be surprised if the Nationals are already looking to find an available Triple-A team closer to home.

Of course, that might be easier said than done.  All of the Eastern-based Triple-A teams are in the International League, and Syracuse is the first International League club to change affiliates since Buffalo.  We're also seeing more and more Major League teams with an ownership stake (if not total ownership) of their Triple-A affiliate.  So, the number of Triple-A cities available for a change is limited to begin with.

There are also Triple-A teams that have become synonymous with their parent club, so even if MLB ownership isn't involved, that relationship isn't changing.  The Royals have been in Omaha and the Rays have been in Durham since they came into existence.  The Pawtucket Red Sox, Iowa Cubs and Toledo Mud Hens (Detroit) have been with their parent team for more than 30 years, and the Braves have been with the same Triple-A affiliate (which they've moved from their longtime home in Richmond to the Atlanta suburb of Gwinnett) since 1965.

Nevertheless, there are definitely more logical places for some Triple-A affiliates.  There are six West Coast teams in the Majors and six Western teams in the Pacific Coast League (Triple-A), plus one in Albuquerque and one in El Paso, which covers the Diamondbacks and Rockies.  But the Dodgers' Triple-A team is in Oklahoma City (where they're partial owners), which complicates matters.

For the most part, teams are pretty good with the location of their Triple-A affiliate, for the logistical reasons I mentioned.  That doesn't mean it can't be better, though.  (Sorry, but Washington in Fresno makes absolutely no sense!)  Here's how I'd like them up, with an affiliation change noted:

International League
Buffalo-Toronto; Charlotte-Washington (White Sox); Columbus-Cleveland; Durham-Tampa Bay; Gwinnett-Atlanta; Indianapolis-Milwaukee (Pittsburgh); Lehigh Valley-Philadelphia; Louisville-Cincinnati; Norfolk-Baltimore; Pawtucket-Boston; Rochester-Pittsburgh (Minnesota); Scranton-Wilkes Barre-Yankees; Syracuse-Mets; Toledo-Detroit

Pacific Coast League
Albuquerque-Colorado; El Paso-Arizona (San Diego); Fresno-San Diego (Washington); Iowa-Cubs; Las Vegas-Dodgers (Oakland); Memphis-St. Louis; Nashville-White Sox (Texas); New Orleans-Miami; Oklahoma City-Minnesota (Dodgers); Omaha-Kansas City; Reno-Oakland (Arizona); Round Rock-Houston; Sacramento-San Francisco; Salt Lake-Angels; San Antonio-Texas (Milwaukee); Tacoma-Seattle

As you can see, it's still not a perfect match for everybody.  But who's to say relocation wouldn't be on the table?  Minor League teams move around all the time.  And if there were ever to be a Triple-A team in Richmond again, that would really be the perfect place for the Nationals.  At the very least, it would be better than Fresno.  That marriage of convenience isn't really too convenient for anybody.

Week 6, NFL 2018

Well, October sure came and hit us in the face, didn't it?  Fall is officially here, which means football season is heating up.  And we've got some great matchups this week, highlighted by Kansas City-New England on Sunday night.  That's one of several important showdowns this week, as several teams are already running the risk of their season getting away from them.

Thursday Night: Philadelphia (Win)

Buccaneers (2-2) at Falcons (1-4): Tampa Bay-Tampa Bay has turned back to Jamies Winston at QB, which didn't surprise me considering how badly they got smacked in Chicago.  Atlanta needs to do something before its season falls into disaster territory (if it hasn't already).  I'm just not confident they'll figure it out.  At least not this week.  The Bucs win it.

Steelers (2-2-1) at Bengals (4-1): Pittsburgh-When the Pittsburgh Steelers are backed against a wall, they come to play.  That was the case in Tampa Bay after they started 0-2.  That was the case last week against Atlanta.  And they face a similar dilemma this week in Cincinnati.  Because if they don't win, they'll be 2.5 games behind the Bengals in the AFC North (with Cincinnati holding the tiebreaker).  And it's only Week 6!

Chargers (3-2) at Browns (2-2-1): Chargers-The last time these two met in Cleveland, it was so embarrassing for the Chargers that they bolted (sorry!) from San Diego.  That was, of course, the Browns' only win in a two-year span.  Things have certainly changed since then...for both teams.  And I think we can rest assured that this will be competitive.  That seems to be the Browns' M.O.  Somebody really needs to tell them that games are supposed to be 60 minutes long, not 70!  In another game decided by a field goal, the Chargers avenge their last trip to Cleveland.

Seahawks (2-3) vs. Raiders (1-4): Seattle-Three straight weeks in London, starting with the two teams making the longest trip out there.  At least the NFL scheduled this one for the British evening so that it wouldn't start at 6:30 a.m. Pacific.  The matchups will get progressively better, capped by Eagles-Jaguars in two weeks.  But the British faithful will first see Jon Gruden's and Pete Carroll's underachieving squads.  Seattle's actually been playing better of late, winning two straight before almost beating the Rams, so their 5,000-mile trip will at least result in a victory.

Bears (3-1) at Dolphins (3-2): Chicago-Chicago has been one of the surprise teams in the NFL this season.  The Bears had last week off, which is the only thing that stopped their run.  I doubt that was enough to completely slow Chicago down.  In any case, the Dolphins are a vastly different team than the one that got out to a 3-0 start.  Playing the Patriots and Bengals sure didn't help, but Chicago's in that same category.

Cardinals (1-4) at Vikings (2-2-1): Minnesota-Arizona got its first win last week, meaning we won't have a 2016-17 Browns situation on our hands this season.  Minnesota has confused me all season.  In their last home game, they got their butts kicked by the Bills.  But last week they won in Philadelphia.  So who are the Vikings really?  I guess we'll find out against a Cardinals team they should have no problem handling.

Colts (1-4) at Jets (2-3): Jets-Just when you think the Jets are totally hopeless, they go and beat a team like Denver.  Badly.  Then there's the Colts.  People want to give Indy the benefit of the doubt, but, with or without Luck, they're not a very good team.  They're definitely not as good as the Jets, who should move to 3-3.  The coolest part of this game, though, is the 50th anniversary celebration of Super Bowl III.  Just keep Joe Namath away from the booze!

Panthers (3-1) at Redskins (2-2): Carolina-A win moves the Panthers into a tie for first place in the NFC South.  Washington, meanwhile, could lose and still stay in first place despite having a sub-.500 record.  So is the NFC East in 2018.  The Redskins got their butts kicked last week in New Orleans, which was merely a footnote to Drew Brees breaking Peyton Manning's record.  Either way, look for the Panthers to join the Saints in the penthouse suite.

Bills (2-3) at Texans (2-3): Houston-Both of these teams got a win last week.  In fact, Houston has won two in a row, both in overtime (maybe they need the same memo as the Browns).  The Bills, meanwhile, go back and forth between looking like the worst team in football and surprising teams that should beat them handily.  I think the Texans have figured things out, though.  Look for them to make it three straight and jump right back into the AFC South race.

Rams (5-0) at Broncos (2-3): Rams-I've said this before, and I'll keep saying it.  The Los Angeles Rams aren't just the best team in football, they're one of the most entertaining.  And last week they again showed us that they know how to win, too.  Now they head to Denver, which it's exactly Southern California.  Shouldn't matter.  Because the Rams' defense should be able to slow the Broncos' offense down, and, after what the Jets did to them last week, Todd Gurley should run wild.

Jaguars (3-2) at Cowboys (2-3): Dallas-If Jacksonville wants to be considered one of the NFL's elite teams, they need to stop laying eggs.  Although I'm not sure how much of that was the Jaguars and how much of it was the Chiefs.  Either way, Dallas comes into this one trying to figure out its own problems.  What can Dak and Zeke do against that Jacksonville defense?  For some reason, I think they'll do enough to get a W.

Ravens (3-2) at Titans (3-2): Baltimore-These two both earned big wins two weeks ago only to lose on the road last week.  Now one of them will be staring a .500 record in the face.  The Titans have had some issues scoring, which could be a problem against a Baltimore team that, last week notwithstanding, hasn't had an issue putting points on the board.  I think the Ravens go into Nashville and pull off the win.

Chiefs (5-0) at Patriots (3-2): Kansas City-Remember when the Chiefs crushed the Patriots on a Monday night three years ago and everybody thought Brady was done?  It was right around this time (I think it dropped New England to 2-2).  Well, we all know what happened at the end of that season.  So don't think that a loss here means anything about New England's playoff chances.  A win would actually go a long way towards improving their position come January.  Kansas City's just a much better team right now, though.

49ers (1-4) at Packers (2-2-1): Green Bay-Green Bay and San Francisco have hooked up for some great games over the years.  Who knows what they have in store for us on Monday night?  The 49ers looked great against the Chargers, then lost to the Cardinals.  The Packers, meanwhile, are 2-0-1 at Lambeau and 0-2 on the road, including last week's debacle in Detroit.  Mason Crosby has certainly had better days.  We'll see if that was just a bad day at the office or a sign that the Packers should be in the market for a kicker.  Either way, Aaron Rodgers and Co. better score some touchdowns just to be safe.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-6
Overall: 44-33-2

The Four Best Teams In Baseball

I'll be honest.  The four Division Series kinda disappointed.  And the reason why is the four series winners.  The quality of baseball played by the Red Sox, Astros, Brewers and Dodgers was absolutely top-notch.  They showed us why they were the top two seeds in their respective leagues.  As a result, we've got 1 vs. 2 in both LCSes for the first time since 2009 (and just the second time in the Division Series Era).

Before the playoffs started, I wondered if the Milwaukee Brewers were ever going to lose again.  After their sweep of Colorado (in which they never trailed), I'm still wondering that.  The Rockies' travels across the Midwestern and Western United States might've been a factor, but Milwaukee completely dominated that series in every respect.  It was clear that the Brewers were the better team.

It was also clear that the Dodgers are significantly better than the Braves.  Those first two games at Dodger Stadium were as close to perfect as that team can play.  And the bold decision to start Kershaw in Game 2 certainly paid off.  He's back to his accustomed spot as the Game 1 starter in the NLCS, but they made their point.  They're much more than Clayton Kershaw.

The Dodgers are so deep that their bench for most of the Atlanta series consisted of a guy who started the All*Star Game (and is the likely Comeback Player of the Year), a guy they picked up at the trade deadline, two guys who started in the World Series last year, and a former World Series MVP.  That doesn't even seem fair.  The Brewers, meanwhile, will look to continue to ride their two strengths, their MVP candidate and their stacked bullpen.

Milwaukee's biggest advantage in this series is in the bullpen.  It's probably the Dodgers' biggest weakness, while the Brewers can't wait to get to their bullpen.  In fact, they got away with doing Tampa Bay's stupid "opener" thing in Game 1 against Colorado.  That tactic won't work against the Dodgers, though.  Because as much as they don't really trust their bullpen, the Dodgers know that their rotation is their biggest strength.  And if they get the type of pitching performances from their starters that they got against Atlanta (especially those like the ones turned in by Kershaw and Ryu), we could see the Dodgers back in the World Series.

Really that's the key to this series for both teams.  Starting pitching.  If the Brewers are able to get to the Dodgers' starters, they're in good shape.  Likewise, if Milwaukee's pitchers go toe-to-toe with them (or even outperform them), it'll be very difficult for the Dodgers to come back against that ridiculous Brewers bullpen.

In my initial pre-playoffs blog, I picked the Brewers to win the NL pennant.  I'll stick with that, but I can easily see this going either way.  For as impressive as Milwaukee was against Colorado, the Dodgers were just as impressive against Atlanta.  It's their third straight NLCS, but their only goal is getting back to the World Series.  And they're playing well enough to get there.  So is Milwaukee, though.  Either way, we've got a potentially great NLCS on our hands.  Brewers in seven.

Meanwhile, the ALCS gives us a matchup of the teams with the two best records in baseball, 108-win Boston and defending champion Houston.  And like the NLCS, the ALCS combatants are so equal in almost every way that it's so difficult to separate them.  Last year when they met in the Division Series, Houston pretty much dominated.  I think this ALCS will be vastly different.

There were a number of reasons the Red Sox beat the Yankees, but the biggest one was where Boston had an advantage all season, a Yankee weakness that was exposed greatly in the Division Series.  And, stop me if you've heard this before, that difference was starting pitching.  The Yankees' starters were vastly inferior to the arms the Red Sox were running out there.  And it wasn't just because the Yankees' bullpen is a strength.  It's because the starters were THAT ineffective.

We all know about what Boston's lineup can do.  When they're facing subpar pitching, 16-1 is what happens.  They won't be seeing subpar pitching in the ALCS, though.  Because the Astros have been winning on the strength of their starting rotation all year long.  And I don't see that changing in the ALCS.

Both the Red Sox and Astros have a dangerous lineup.  They both have solid rotations.  And they're both scared of their bullpens before their closer.  So where's the difference between the two?  Well, I'd argue that Houston's lineup is a little deeper.  The bottom four in the Boston order are definitely manageable, especially compared to those beasts on top.  The Astros, meanwhile, had Carlos Correa batting sixth against Cleveland.

Boston's better than last year.  That's obvious.  They won 108 games and have two MVP candidates.  But what everyone seems to be forgetting is that Houston is better, too.  And the Astros were hot in September (they needed to be to hold off the A's), and they carried it right into October.  They've got Altuve back, too, which has been a big difference.

And there's this, too.  Alex Bregman was "pissed off" that the Astros played all afternoon games during the Division Series.  I disagree with him on the scheduling topic, but I think his point is that Houston felt disrespected.  Well, they get to be in prime time during the ALCS, which features the second-most combined wins in LCS history.

Just like I took Milwaukee at the start of the playoffs, I'm doubling down on my Houston pick in the AL.  Heck, I took the Astros back in March, so I really have no reason to change now!  I think the difference in the ALCS will be the back end of the rotation.  I also think Verlander outduels Sale.  Astros in six.

Either way, we've got the four best teams in baseball left, which should give us two outstanding LCSes.  And you can't really complain about any of the four possible World Series matchups.  It'll either be Dodgers-Red Sox, two of the marquee franchises in the game, Dodgers-Astros in a World Series rematch, Astros-Brewers in the battle of teams that switched leagues (and just the second-ever all-expansion World Series) or a Red Sox-Brewers matchup between the top team in each league.  I'll sign up for any of those.

2018 MLB Anti-Superlatives

Every November, I have fun when baseball awards season comes around and the debates are settled.  But those awards go to the best players in baseball during the season.  There are plenty of players and teams on the other end of the spectrum, though.  And I feel it's time to honor them, as well.  So, here we go with the first-ever MLB Anti-Superlatives.

I'm only including opposite awards for three of the four major awards--LVP, Cy Old and Mis-Manager.  No rookie because it's rare that a struggling rookie will be left in the Majors long enough without getting sent to Triple A.  Sure, Byron Buxton would almost certainly qualify...except he was in his fourth year with the Twins this season!

Don't worry, though.  I do have a fourth "award" planned.  It goes to the the executive/organization that screwed itself up the most through its offseason moves.  Couldn't really think of a good name for that one, though.  Actually, wait a second, I just did!  Disorganization of the Year!

The inaugural winner of the National League Disorganization of the Year is none other than the Washington Nationals.  Maybe firing Dusty Baker wasn't the best idea!  Because clearly Dusty wasn't the problem.  A team this good on paper should've run away with the NL East.  Instead they were an absolute mess and found themselves as sellers in August.  So, despite all the talent in Washington over the past few seasons, they don't have a single playoff series win to show for it.  And it may all be over if Harper decides to leave as a free agent (which I don't think he will).  If he does leave, talk about wasting Bryce Harper and Max Scherzer in their primes!

There are plenty of candidates in the AL, but two of the three 100-loss teams were supposed to be that bad, so you can't really blame mismanagement.  There is one team that expected to be at least competitive and wasn't, though, which is why the American League Disorganization of the Year goes to the Minnesota Twins.  They were a playoff team last year.  This year they finished second in the AL Central.  But finishing 13 games back in the worst division in baseball with a record of 78-84 isn't exactly a successful season.  Then you throw in all the drama with Miguel Sano and Buxton both getting sent to the Minors during the year, and the 2018 season was just a mess in Minnesota.

My National League Mis-Manager of the Year is the Phillies' Gabe Kapler.  Kapler gave us the first indication that he was in over his head early in the season, when he called for a reliever who wasn't even warming up to come into the game.  Then the Phillies were surprisingly in contention throughout July and August.  Then September came.  And Philadelphia went 8-20, including an eight-game road trip where they got swept to knock them from contending for the NL East title to not even in the wild card discussion.

It's a little unfair to do this to him, but the American League Mis-Manager of the Year goes to Buck Showalter, formerly of the Orioles.  Everyone knew Baltimore was going to be bad.  But I don't think anybody expected them to be as awful as they were.  Granted, they didn't give Buck much to work with, especially after the only two players on the team worth anything got traded to the NLCS participants.  But how many of the 47 games they did win were because of shrewd managerial decisions?

One clarification about the Cy Old Award.  It has nothing to do with the pitcher's age.  So, the fact that Bartolo Colon pitched against the actual Cy Young is irrelevant for this discussion.  No, it's an "award' for the worst pitcher in each league.  In the AL, it's easy.  But the NL required some real thinking.  I even solicited candidates.

Ultimately, I decided to go with Homer Bailey of the Reds as the recipient of the National League Cy Old.  For all the talk about how wins don't matter with Jacob de Grom, would you like to know how many wins Bailey finished with?  One!  And if you thought his 1-14 record was bad enough, it gets worse.  Opponents hit .313 against him, he had a WHIP of 1.64 and his ERA was 6.09!  Yet somehow he managed to make 20 starts for Cincinnati, a number that almost certainly would've been higher had he not spent six weeks on the DL.  The Reds' record in those 20 games?  1-19.

Meanwhile, the American League Cy Old is the easiest of these eight awards to decide.  It actually helped inspire tonight's post.  And considering the Yankees' Sonny Gray didn't win much during the season, it's only fitting that he "wins" this.  Incredibly, Gray lasted until the end of July in the rotation until the Yankees finally gave up on him.  Even more remarkably, he ended the season with a winning record.  But watching Sonny Gray was painful all year long.  The likelihood of him making the Yankees' playoff roster was about as good as the likelihood of my making it.

Now on to the ultimate dishonor.  The Least Valuable Player.  And my National League LVP is the Padres' Eric Hosmer.  Don't get me wrong.  I love Eric Hosmer.  I think he's one of the best first basemen in baseball.  His first year in San Diego just didn't go that well.  Maybe it was the new league.  Maybe it was signing late.  Maybe it was the contract.  Whatever it was, things didn't quite work out for him in 2018.  After seven brilliant years in Kansas City, he hit just .253 with 18 homers and 69 RBIs in 157 games during his first season with the Padres.  Not horrible numbers.  But not numbers that are worth $144 million over eight years, either.  It's only been one year, but the Padres haven't gotten the same return on investment from Hosmer as the Red Sox have gotten from last winter's other big free agent signee, J.D. Martinez.

Finally, we've got the American League LVP, which is another easy one.  There's only one person it could possibly go to.  And that, of course, is Chris Davis of the Orioles.  While Oakland's Khris Davis, Mr. .247 himself, emerged as an MVP candidate, the Baltimore version continued to steal the Orioles' money.  Because if you thought his 2017 numbers (.215/26/61/195 K's) were bad, his 2018 was worse.  Davis hit .168, the lowest among all American League qualifiers (lower than even Gary Sanchez), with just 16 home runs and 49 RBIs.  He struck out more than 40 percent of the time (192 in 470 at bats) and somehow managed to slug under .300.  And he's supposed to be a power hitter, mind you.  By the way, there's still four years left on that seven-year/$161 million contract that gets worse by the year.  Especially on a 115-loss team badly in need of a rebuild.

Week 5, NFL 2018

Forgive me for not being overly enthused about this week's NFL offerings.  I'm chalking it up to a side effect of the Yankees playing the Red Sux in the playoffs. 

Anyway, the little bit of the Thursday night game I did watch exposed one of the NFL rules I hate the most.  Right up there with the 10-minute overtime is the 10-second run off when they go from a stopped clock to a running clock after replay reviews in the last two minutes.  It happened again on Thursday.  They took a touchdown away from the Colts, said the guy was down on the one and, since the clock should've been running, there was a 10-second run off. 

I've always said that rule is ridiculous.  The clock wasn't running because you stopped it!  Why are you penalizing the Colts because you made the wrong call by stopping the clock?!  The Lions lost a game on that last year.  There were only eight seconds left in the game, so they never even had a chance to run another play!  The rule on plays like that should be the clock starts as soon as the ball is spotted.  Because it's ridiculously unfair to the offense that they're getting 10 seconds taken off the clock because an incorrect call on the field was overturned.

Thursday Night: New England (Win)

Titans (3-1) at Bills (1-3): Tennessee-A pair of playoff teams from last season headed in vastly different directions.  It's still somewhat shocking that the Bills won--convincingly--in Minnesota.  But it was back to reality last week at Lambeau.  The Titans, meanwhile, beat the Eagles in overtime, and they sit in first place in the AFC South.  They've proven they can win defensive struggles and they've proven they can win shootouts.  Tennessee is an impressive team.

Dolphins (3-1) at Bengals (3-1): Cincinnati-When the schedule came out, who had this pegged as a showdown of first-place teams?  But here we are at the quarter-pole and that's the exact situation we find ourselves in.  Yes, Miami got whupped in New England.  But that was an impressive performance by the Bengals in that shootout in Atlanta.  This one should be fun.  With the game in Cincinnati, I'm going with the Bengals.

Ravens (3-1) at Browns (1-2-1): Baltimore-Let's call a spade a spade.  The Browns got screwed last week.  Frankly, Cleveland should be entering this game at 3-1 at the very least.  Instead, they're 1-2-1 and taking on a Ravens team that's tied for first place after that dominant win in Pittsburgh last Sunday night.  I do know this--it's going to be competitive.  The Browns have shown that they're no longer a pushover.  Baltimore has found a way to get it done all season, though.

Packers (2-1-1) at Lions (1-3): Green Bay-The Packers may have gotten their groove back.  At least it sure looked like it while they were crushing the Bills last week.  This is Green Bay's third division game already, and they've looked vulnerable against their division foes.  They ended up beating the Bears and tying the Vikings, though.  I understand neither of those games was pretty and they were both at home, which would give me plenty of reason to pick Detroit.  I just can't go against the Packers, though.

Jaguars (3-1) at Chiefs (4-0): Kansas City-This might be the best game of the week, as we've got the two best teams in the AFC facing off.  And the winner will have the tiebreaker, which could be huge come December.  The Jacksonville defense is better than any Patrick Mahomes has seen so far.  But after what he did on Monday night in Denver, how can you pick against him?  This guy's the new Aaron Rodgers!

Broncos (2-2) at Jets (1-3): Denver-Denver's been looking for a franchise quarterback ever since Peyton Manning retired.  I think they've found their man in Case Keenum.  The Jets have also found their man at QB in Sam Darnold.  How will he handle Von Miller's defense, though?  Especially after that rude awakening from Jacksonville.  This week won't be nearly as bad, but I still think his inexperience will show.

Falcons (1-3) at Steelers (1-2-1): Pittsburgh-Can Week 5 really be a must win?  Wasn't I saying the same thing about these two teams last week?  They're definitely starting to feel the heat in both Atlanta and Pittsburgh, as these thought-to-be Super Bowl contenders have combined for just two wins this season.  And that urgency is definitely showing.  We're gonna see two desperate teams in this one.  The last time we saw the Steelers have a sense of desperation, they crushed Tampa Bay on a Monday night.

Giants (1-3) at Panthers (2-1): Carolina-Giants Head Coach Pat Shurmer said earlier this week that the team's struggles this season are due to lack of execution, not lack of heart.  I'd agree with that.  Last year's Giants were completely disinterested by midseason.  This year's team has battled in every game.  And, keep in mind, two of those losses are to 2017 playoff teams Jacksonville and New Orleans.  Things don't get any easier with another 2017 playoff team, Carolina, on tap this week.  A rested Panthers team will pose another challenge for Big Blue.

Raiders (1-3) at Chargers (2-2): Chargers-Oakland finally got a "win," but it was essentially gift-wrapped for them with those bad calls against Cleveland in the fourth quarter and overtime last week.  Anyway, now they head down the California coast to face the Chargers, whose 2-2 record is deceiving, seeing as their losses are to the Chiefs and Rams.  They're a better team than Oakland.  They'll go to 3-2.

Vikings (1-2-1) at Eagles (2-2): Philadelphia-Personally, I thought this one should've been the season opener.  Instead, FOX gets it as the Week 5 national game, and the Vikings come into it on a three-game winless streak.  The Eagles, meanwhile, have alternated good and bad over their first four games.  Last week was one of the bad ones.  They lost to the Titans in another overtime game that could've ended up a tie (10-minute overtime is awful!).  But, back at home in an odd week, this should be one of their good ones.

Cardinals (0-4) at 49ers (1-3): San Francisco-After looking outright pathetic in the first two games, the Cardinals have only lost their last two by a combined five points.  Nevertheless, they were still both losses.  If Arizona is going to turn that 0 into a 1, this might be the week to do it.  The 49ers are confident in C.J. Beathard, though.  And they should be.  He looked perfectly capable last week against the Chargers.  And the Chargers are better than the Cardinals.

Rams (4-0) at Seahawks (2-2): Rams-There's a great piece in this week's Sports Illustrated about the Seahawks' "Dynasty That Never Was."  It basically confirms what we all pretty much already knew...that the idiotic play call in the Super Bowl that led to New England's game-clinching interception was the beginning of the end of Seattle's window.  That window has all been slammed shut by the Rams, who are more than just the class of the division.  They're perhaps the best team in the NFL.  They're certainly the most fun to watch.  And they'll be 5-0 come Sunday evening.

Cowboys (2-2) at Texans (1-3): Dallas-They don't play in the regular season very often, but when the two Texas teams get together it's usually a pretty good matchup.  This year should be no exception, as the Cowboys, who are still trying to find their offense, will look to do so against the Texans' defense.  Houston's sense of desperation is much less than it would've been had they not picked up that overtime win (with a little help from Frank Reich) last week.  Dallas has won the last three regular season meetings, so I'm going with them.  But what I'm excited to see is Zak & Deke vs. DeShaun Watson for the first time.

Redskins (2-1) at Saints (3-1): New Orleans-Drew Brees should become the NFL's all-time leader in passing yardage in this one.  That's the only reason I can think of why it was scheduled for Monday night.  OK, not the only reason.  But it does seem like an odd opponent to choose for the Saints in their annual home Monday nighter.  Especially with Washington coming off a bye week.  It's been so long since they've played that people might forget the Redskins are in the league.  Well, they still are.  Do you really think the Saints are going to let them ruin Brees' big night though?  Didn't think so.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 9-6
Season: 35-27-2

Three For 2026

When they first announced the bid cities for the 2026 Winter Olympics, I thought they very well might end up in Erzurum, Turkey by default.  It seemed entirely possible that Erzurum would be the only bid left, since all of the others were subject to either lukewarm governmental support or the dreaded public referendum.  And, as we all know, once an Olympic bid reaches that point, it's over.  That's why Graz, Austria and Sion, Switzerland withdrew their bids over the summer.

So it came as a bit of a surprise when the IOC reduced the list of final candidates for 2026 to three, eliminating Erzurum from the race.  There were some security concerns, but the IOC's main reasons for cutting Erzurum were more logistical.  They have some work to do with the overall infrastructure and venues would need to be upgraded, and the IOC simply doesn't think Erzurum would be ready to host an Olympics in 2026.

That leaves us with three candidates, all of which have hosted the Olympics before--1988 host Calgary; Stockholm, which hosted the 1912 Summer Games; and the confusing Italian bid including Milan and Cortina d'Ampezzo, the 1956 Winter host.  Torino was supposed to be involved in that one, too, but they withdrew last week basically because of a power struggle with Milan over which city would be the focal point.  That was probably for the best.  Because the two remaining co-hosts are far enough apart.  Milan and Cortina are 450 miles from each other!

Here's why the IOC cutting the Turkish bid is incredibly risky, though.  The citizens of Calgary are all but begging to give the public a say in whether or not they move forward.  The Swedish government can't decide if they want to throw their support behind the Stockholm bid, and that one might come down to who wins the upcoming election.  And the Italian bid is still working out the actual logistics of their plan.

They all fit into the IOC's Olympic Agenda 2020.  Calgary would use many of the same venues as 1988, while Stockholm and Cortina regularly host World Cup events in a number of winter sports.  And with the remaining bids coming from Canada and Europe, it also fulfills the IOC's unspoken goal of returning to a "more traditional" location after back-to-back Winter Games in the Far East.

I've long thought that Stockholm is probably the favorite, as long as the Swedes get their act together between now and next year's vote (which was supposed to be in Milan, but will likely be moved to IOC headquarters because of the obvious conflict of interest with Milan as one of the bid cities).  It's crazy to think that the Winter Olympics have existed for nearly a century, yet have never been in Sweden, one of the top winter sports nations in the world.  In fact, the only time the Olympics have ever been held in Sweden was in 1912, when Stockholm hosted the legendary Jim Thorpe Summer Games.  (A successful bid would make Stockholm the second city all-time, and in a row, to have hosted both a Summer and Winter Olympics.)

Although, while it's being touted as a "Stockholm" bid, it's extremely spread out.  Stockholm's on the coast, so the mountain events would be held in Are, which is more than three hours away.  They're also talking about holding the sliding events across the border in Latvia.  Yet, despite all this, Stockholm is still the bid I support.  I think a Swedish Winter Olympics is long overdue.

Logistically, Calgary is probably the safest option.  The facilities are still in great shape.  In fact, most of them serve as training centers for both the Canadian and American teams.  But, my big concern with Calgary is the World Cup.  The 2026 World Cup has already been awarded to North America, and Edmonton will be one of the host cities.  Will the IOC want to put both of the major international sporting events in 2026 in the same country?  And how much money can the Alberta government reasonably be expected to shell out for both events?

As for the Italian bid, I'm not even sure they know the details.  I'm assuming it's outdoor sports in the beautiful Alpine city of Cortina, with the indoor sports in one of Europe's largest cities.  The Opening Ceremony would probably be in the 80,000-seat San Siro, home of AC Milan and Inter Milan.  On paper, a Milan/Cortina bid seems solid.  But Rome's favored bid for the 2020 Summer Games was withdrawn because of a lack of government support.  They support this one, but aren't putting any money behind it.  Instead, it's up to the cities and regions to come up with the money themselves through public and private investments.  I'm also worried the same issues that led Torino to back out could come between the remaining two cities, as well.

All three have their risks.  Which is why I'm surprised they cut the Turkish bid.  Ultimately, the IOC must feel comfortable that one, two or even all three of the remaining candidates will survive to the final vote.  Which is obviously something the IOC badly needs after the disaster of 2022 and the 2024/2028 dual awarding.

The silver lining is that each of the remaining cities is a capable host that would do a fine job.  Calgary's Winter Olympics 30 years ago were extremely well-organized.  The Italians could honor the 60th anniversary of the previous Cortina Games while also capitalizing on the sexiness of one of Europe's most beautiful cities.  Stockholm, meanwhile, has a great legacy plan.  And just imagine how amazing Olympic hockey on Swedish ice would be!

We're still a long way away from the awarding of the 2026 Winter Olympics next September.  Hopefully all three remain in the race until then.  That would be a positive first step for the Olympic Movement.  (There haven't even been three cities in the final vote since Tokyo's election in 2013.)  Then the host needs to deliver.  They need to prove that you can host the Winter Olympics without your city going bankrupt.  Which all three of these candidates are capable of doing.

NHL Season Preview

With the start of the baseball playoffs, it's so easy for the start of the NHL season to get lost in the mix.  But here we are.  Alex Ovechkin needs to stop chugging beer out of the Cup and get down to the work of defending it.  Which is something Washington is completely capable of doing.

Also, how cool is it that the Oilers and Devils are starting the season in Sweden?  The Panthers and Jets will play in Helsinki next month, too.  The NHL is the most international of the four major sports, which is why events like the World Cup of Hockey (or *cough* the Olympics *cough*) are so competitive.  NHL players who've been eliminated from the playoffs go to Europe for the World Championships every year, but actual regular season NHL games are something different entirely.  Oilers-Devils isn't a bad matchup, either.

Anyway, now that I'm off that tangent, time to look at what's ahead for the 2018-19 season.  And I think the league is wide open this year.  I know that's a common refrain at the beginning of any season.  But this year it really rings true.  Because I don't think there's one dominant team that's going to just steamroll through everybody.  There are some teams that will likely struggle and some that will almost certainly make the playoffs.  But the difference between those playoff teams is so minute that it really is anybody's Cup to win.

So let's start with the defending champs in DC then.  It should've figured that the one year we don't expect anything from the Capitals is the year they'd actually win.  And they've got all the pieces to do it again.  At the very least, we'll see the Capitals and Penguins stage their usual battle for Metropolitan Division supremacy.  I give the edge to Washington, but it's a very slight one.  And you know the Penguins didn't like giving up their throne.  I expect a bounce back year from Pittsburgh.

Columbus and Philadelphia both joined them in the playoffs last season, but the Blue Jackets and Flyers will definitely be tested for those spots behind the two top dogs.  Personally, I think Columbus is slightly better than Philadelphia, so I'd say the Blue Jackets are safe.  I can't say the same about the Flyers, though.  Because they'll need to hold off both the Devils, another 2018 playoff team, and the improved teams in the Atlantic.

The Islanders snagged Stanley Cup-winning coach Barry Trotz away from the Capitals.  But they also lost their best player in John Tavares.  As a result, I think they'll be on the outside looking in.  As will the Rangers and Hurricanes.  Carolina isn't that bad.  They're just in the wrong division.  Give the Rangers another year or two and they'll be right back battling it out with Pittsburgh and Washington.

I think the three best teams in the Eastern Conference are in the Atlantic, though.  And I'm talking about the three that had the highest point-totals last season--Tampa Bay, Boston and Toronto.  Rangers South still packs a lot of star power, and Boston has some of the best talent in hockey.  But it's the Maple Leafs that are really intriguing.  They signed Tavares because he has the same goal they do.  They badly want the Cup, and they're going all-in.  They just might be good enough to do it, too.

Expect a bounce-back year from Montreal, too.  There's no way the Canadiens are as good as they were in 2016-17.  There's also no way they're as bad as they were much of last season.  It's somewhere in the middle, which should have them in the mix for one of the wild cards.  They're the only Atlantic Division team I can say that about.  Because the Panthers, Senators, Red Wings and Sabres aren't very good.  I do think Ottawa and Detroit will be much improved, though.

Out west, the story of last season, of course, was the Golden Knights.  What can Vegas do for an encore after the greatest inaugural season for an expansion team in sports history?  Well, it sure doesn't seem like they plan on slowing down, seeing as they added another legit star in Max Pacioretty, who came over in a trade from Montreal.

As usual, California will provide us with the remaining playoff teams out of the Pacific Division.  The Ducks have put together great regular seasons followed by playoff disappointment for a few years in a row now.  And the Sharks played for the Cup not too long ago.  San Jose still has many of those same pieces, so there's no reason not to think they won't be in the mix again.

Of the three California teams, the Kings seem to be the most susceptible to being left out of the playoff party.  That's because Edmonton will be in the conversation for a wild card, and I can even see the Oilers cracking that Duck-Shark-Knight stranglehold at the top of the division.  Calgary isn't bad, but they're not a playoff team.  Vancouver doesn't even have the Sedin brothers anymore, and Arizona still has a hockey team (for now).

In the Central is where it gets really interesting.  You have a Winnipeg team that made it to the Conference Final last year, a Nashville team that played for the Cup two years ago, a Minnesota team that may be better than both of them, and a Blackhawks team that somehow missed the playoffs last season.  Don't forget about St. Louis, either.  This division isn't going to be separated by much.  Because the Avalanche and Stars aren't exactly slouches, either.  Yet somebody's gotta finish last.

Last season was either the start of something big in Winnipeg or just a flash in the pan.  I'm still not sure which.  I do think the Jets will return to the playoffs, but, like the Golden Knights, everything just went right for them last season.  Which is why I like Nashville to repeat as division champs.  The Predators are loaded up for another deep run after winning the Western Conference title in 2016-17 and the President's Trophy last season.

You can take what I just said about the Jets and replace "Winnipeg" with "Minnesota."  Because I think it's the exact same story with the Wild.  I can see them finishing with 100 points.  I can see them finishing last.  Chicago I can't see finishing last, however.  The Blackhawks are old, which could be problematic.  But if they stay healthy, they're definitely one of the eight best teams in the West.  And if you let a team with as much playoff experience as Chicago has get into the postseason, all bets are off.

No, I didn't really say much of anything you can take to the bank there.  That's exactly the point I was making, though.  Especially out west, these teams are so tight that it's so tough to separate them.  But I'm gonna give it a try anyway.

My playoff teams in the Atlantic are Tampa Bay, Boston and Toronto.  I've got Washington, Pittsburgh and Columbus in the Metropolitan.  And my Eastern Conference wild cards are the Devils and Canadiens.  As for the West, I'll take Nashville, Winnipeg and Minnesota in the Central, and Anaheim, San Jose and Vegas in the Pacific, with Chicago and Edmonton as my wild cards.  Give me Tampa Bay vs. Nashville in the Stanley Cup Final before the Lightning do their best Alex Ovechkin impressions next summer.  Because for all the good teams there are in the NHL, Tampa Bay is the best.

Already Outstanding October Baseball

Boy, were we spoiled this year.  Not only did October baseball start a day early, we got two division championship games in the National League.  They were somewhat anticlimactic in that the Cubs and Rockies both made the playoffs anyway.  But it was also incredibly appropriate considering how wide open the National League was all season.

And that's why I think this October is going to be wide open in both leagues.  There were three 100-win teams in the AL, the first time in history that has occurred.  But don't sleep on Cleveland.  I wouldn't be surprised at all to see the Indians win the pennant.  Meanwhile, all five National League teams are pretty much the same degree of good.  Your guess is as good as mine as to which one's gonna get (or stay) hot over the next three weeks.

One thing I do know it that it won't be the Nationals, this year's winner of the Most Disappointing Team award.  So, my preseason World Series pick will obviously have to be revised.  The Houston part still looks good, but the Astros won't be facing Washington.

Although, that's really the only reason why I'm sticking with the Astros.  Houston is better than last year's champions.  But so are the Red Sox.  So are the Yankees.  And I'd even argue, so are the Indians.  Picking an AL pennant winner is practically impossible.  Because you could make a case for or against every team.  You could seriously choose one out of a hat and have just as much a chance of being right as if you were to base it on anything baseball-related.

Houston does seem to be the strongest AL team on paper, though.  They had a ridiculously good September to hold off the A's, and their lineup is finally healthy.  You combine that with arguably the best starting rotation of any playoff team and an improved bullpen, and it's easy to see the Astros becoming the third AL team this decade to win consecutive pennants.

Red Sox fans will be quick to remind you that they were the best team in baseball all season, though.  You don't win 108 games if you aren't crazy good.  But there are some questions with Boston's rotation, and their bullpen has always been their Achilles' heel.  Plus, as much as they improved their bench with smart trade-deadline acquisitions, they're still incredibly top-heavy.  What I mean by that is the top six in their lineup is ridiculously good (obviously), but the bottom third isn't great and the bench isn't that strong, either.

The questions surrounding the Yankees obviously are centered around the starting rotation.  But their lineup, which is actually healthy 1-9, hit a Major-League record 267 home runs this season.  If they hit the way they can and get good enough starting pitching, the best bullpen in baseball can take care of the rest.  Being a wild card won't phase them in the slightest.  Neither does the possibility of facing their archrivals in the Division Series or a potential ALCS rematch with Houston.  (Of course, with all this talk about the Yankees in the Division Series and ALCS, watch them lose to Oakland!)

Like I said, don't sleep on Cleveland.  The Indians have had everything locked up for so long that they've been setting themselves up for October since the All*Star Break.  They've got the pitching to go toe-to-toe with Houston, and their lineup is much more than just Jose Ramirez and Francisco Lindor.  The Astros are still the favorites in that Division Series.  But the Indians are an incredibly formidable opponent.

Over in the National League, I'm glad the Dodgers won and claimed their sixth straight NL West title.  Because the three best teams in the National League are the Brewers, Cubs and Dodgers, so it wouldn't have seemed right to have either the Braves or Rockies guaranteed a spot in the NLCS (it would've been cool to see Colorado win its first-ever division title, though).

For most of the second half, I thought the road to the NL pennant went through Wrigley.  It looked even more that way when the Nationals officially threw in the towel and traded Daniel Murphy to the Cubs.  But then the Milwaukee Brewers went on an absolutely ridiculous run.  And suddenly they look unbeatable.  The Brewers have a 2007 Rockies/2014 Royals vibe about them right now.  I said a week ago, almost tongue-in-cheek, "Watch the Brewers win the NL pennant."  It's not so tongue-in-cheek that I say that now.

A Brewers-Cubs Division Series is almost as good as a Yankees-Red Sox Division Series.  And, just like Yankees-Red Sox, I can easily see the wild card team knocking out its top-seeded division rival.  Don't forget, the Cubs have been to three straight NLCS.  The first one when they were a wild card...and they beat the archrival Cardinals in the Division Series.  This Brewers team is better than the 2015 Cardinals, though.  I just wonder how long Milwaukee's gonna be able to stay on this run.

Meanwhile, the Dodgers have been nearly as hot as the Brewers over the past month.  It took them a little while to get things going, but they finally did in September.  And this finally looks like the superstar-laden Dodgers team you'd expect.  Remember, too, that this team is tired of losing in the playoffs.  Especially after losing Game 7 of the World Series last year.  A third straight NLCS appearance won't be enough.  Especially since they're better than the Braves.

Atlanta was the only NL playoff team that knew what was going on yesterday.  The Braves might've arrived a year early, and they sure took advantage of Washington's down year.  It's a nice story, but I think the Braves are the weakest of the 10 playoff teams.  This will be good experience for them moving forward, but they're not as good as the Dodgers.  And I have a feeling that their ending up with a worse record than LA, meaning they're the ones traveling cross-country for Games 1 & 2, could end up making a difference in that series.

I'm not discounting Colorado and Oakland.  The A's have been a surprise all year, but they certainly belong in the playoffs.  I just don't see them winning in Yankee Stadium.  Ditto with the Rockies.  That NL West game was much more important to win than the NL Central game in my opinion.  Because now Colorado has to play three games in three different cities in three days.  Meanwhile, the Cubs didn't go anywhere.  And they have Jon Lester pitching.  As good as the Rockies' lineup is, being travel-weary and facing Lester is a lot to ask.

So, here are my official revised MLB postseason predictions.  The Cubs beat the Rockies in the NL Wild Card Game.  NLDS: Brewers over Cubs in four, Dodgers over Braves in four.  Then the Brewers beat the Dodgers in six in the NLCS.  In the AL, the Yankees beat Oakland in the Wild Card Game, Houston sweeps Cleveland, the Red Sox beat the Yankees in five, then the Astros beat the Red Sox in six.  And, the Houston Astros become the first team since the 1998-2000 Yankees to defend a World Series title.  They beat Milwaukee in six in a World Series between the two teams that switched leagues.