It's the final day of 2018. Which means it's time for my annual countdown of the year's top games. When I first started doing this, the number of games corresponded to the year. But, we've gotten to the point where the number in the year is too high, so I'm capping it at 15. Second, I'm not completely binding myself to one game per sport/event like I have in the past. Simply because there were three memorable USA gold-medal winning performances (in three different sports) in PyeongChang that I can't ignore.
As usual, these rankings are extremely subjective. I was even considering not assigning rankings at all and just sorting them by date. But then I realized that's not nearly as much fun. So, here we go, my top 15 games of 2018.
15. Ford EcoBoost 400: November 18, Miami-Once again, NASCAR got a finale that was worthy of deciding a championship. Joey Logano, Kyle Busch, Martin Truex and Kevin Harvick entered the race as the only four eligible drivers for the series title...and they ended up going 1-2-3-4! Logano got the win, both in the race and, more importantly in the points. That's the way to win a championship.
14. Simona Halep vs. Angelique Kerber (Australian Open Women's Semifinal): January 25, Melbourne-Simona Halep had quite the fortnight in Melbourne. In the third round, she was down three match points against American Lauren Davis before winning 15-13 in the third set. Then in the semifinals, she played an absolute classic against 2016 champion Angelique Kerber. Halep served for the match at 5-3 in the third and had two match points on Kerber's serve after getting broken. But she wouldn't get the break until the 16th game of the set, when Halep closed out a 6-3, 4-6, 9-7 victory after two hours and 20 minutes.
13. U.S. Open (Golf) Final Round: June 17, Shinnecock Hills, NY-Four golfers were tied for the lead after the third round, so a playoff seemed almost guaranteed. Except three of the four wouldn't end up being factors. Tommy Fleetwood, who wasn't even on the leaderboard after round three, would. He shot a seven-under 63 to leap into contention. Fleetwood ended up at +2 for the tournament, one stroke behind defending champion Brooks Koepka, who became the first man in nearly 30 years to win consecutive U.S. Opens.
12. Women's Cross Country Team Sprint: Feb. 21, PyeongChang-Entering the PyeongChang Games, the United States had a grand total of one Olympic medal in cross country skiing--a silver in 1976. No U.S. woman had ever won a medal, and no American had ever won gold. All of those stats changed on one glorious night in South Korea. Sweden, Norway and the United States broke away early, so the medal was assured. It was just a matter of color. And with a furious rush down the home straightaway, Jessie Diggins clinched that first-ever gold and let out one of the best victory screams I've ever heard. She and Kikkan Randall had made U.S. Olympic history.
11. Spain 3, Portugal 3 (World Cup, Group B): June 15, Sochi-Once again, the World Cup gave us plenty of candidates for this list. But this one on the second day of the tournament might've been the craziest. Spain and Portugal ending up in the same group was stupid enough. Then they ended up playing each other in the opening game. Pretty Boy had a hat trick. He scored on a penalty kick in the fourth minute, then tied it in the 88th minute with his third goal of the game. And that was just the start of the craziness that was the 2018 World Cup.
10. Women's 4x400 Relay, NCAA Outdoor Championships: June 9, Eugene, OR-USC entered the final event of the NCAA Championships in fourth place, nine points behind indoor champion Georgia and eight behind Stanford. USC was the only one of the three entered in the 4x400 relay and still had a shot at the national title, but the Trojans could only do that if they won the relay and earned the 10 points that went with it. And what happened in that relay was incredible. USC was in fourth place at the start of the anchor leg and third with 100 meters left...about 15 meters behind Purdue. Yet somehow, Kendall Ellis ran everyone down in one of the most incredible finishes I've ever seen to win both the relay and the national title.
9. Preakness Stakes: May 19, Baltimore-This was by far the closest Justify came to losing during that remarkable Triple Crown run. On a disgusting, foggy day in Baltimore, the Kentucky Derby champion raced right to the front on the muddy track, then held off the late-charging Bravazo, Tenfold and Good Magic to win the second leg of an eventual Triple Crown. The top five horses were separated by a total of two lengths.
8. Kansas 85, Duke 81-OT (Elite Eight): March 25, Omaha-Loyola-Chicago gave us some heart-stopping excitement during their surprise run to the Final Four (their first three NCAA Tournament games were decided by a combined four points), but in my opinion, the game of the tournament was Duke and Kansas in the Elite Eight. The only 1 vs. 2 regional final saw two blue-bloods trading punches and counter punches for 45 minutes. Kansas tied it with 26 seconds left, Duke missed a potential game-winner at the buzzer, then Malik Newman scored all 13 of the Jayhawks' points in overtime, as they advanced to their first Final Four in six years.
7. USA 9-Canada 7, 11 ends (Olympic Men's Curling Round Robin): Feb. 19, PyeongChang-The semifinal win over Canada was thrilling, and five-point end against Sweden in the final essentially locked up the gold medal before it was official. But the American men's curling team doesn't win that historic first Olympic title without their round-robin victory over the Canadians. In fact, the USA was only 2-4 and in danger of missing out on the medal round entirely had they lost this one. Canada scored two in the 10th end to tie the score at 7-7, and American skip John Shuster had to make a perfect shot on his final stone of the 11th to win. That's exactly what he did, getting the gold-medal run started.
6. Notre Dame 61, Mississippi State 58 (NCAA Women's National Championship Game): April 1, Columbus, OH-Just in case her three-pointer with one second left in overtime to win the National Semifinal against UConn wasn't enough, Arike Ogunbowale decided to one-up herself in the National Championship Game. Mississippi State actually led 58-53 with less than two minutes remaining when the Irish started their comeback. A steal gave Notre Dame the ball with three seconds to go in a 58-58 game. After both teams took timeout, Ogunbowale drained a three while falling out of bounds in front of the Notre Dame bench with 0.1 seconds left, clinching the national title.
5. Dodgers 3-Red Sox 2, 18 innings (World Series Game 3): Oct. 26-27, Los Angeles-Everyone could tell as the innings went on and the hours passed that Game 3 of the World Series was something that won't soon be forgotten. Checking in at seven hours and 20 minutes, it wasn't just the longest game in World Series history, it was longer than the ENTIRE 1939 series. It was 1-1 until the Red Sox scored in the 13th, only to have the Dodgers tie in the bottom of the 13th. And so it continued. Nathan Eovaldi threw up zero after zero until Max Muncy led off the bottom of the 18th with a walk-off homer, finally sending everybody home. It was actually the only game in the entire series that Boston lost.
4. Alabama 26, Georgia 23-OT (CFP National Championship Game): Jan. 8, Atlanta-College football's version of Warriors-Cavs was a semifinal game, and the other semifinal was an absolutely incredible Rose Bowl where Georgia beat Oklahoma in double overtime. Yet the Championship Game managed to top it. Georgia had a 13-0 lead at halftime and led 20-7 midway through the third quarter. Then Nick Saban switched quarterbacks and Alabama scored 13 unanswered points. Georgia got the ball first in overtime and kicked a field goal. So Alabama naturally got a 41-yard touchdown pass on the second play of its OT possession to win another national title, their fifth in nine years.
3. Novak Djokovic vs. Rafael Nadal (Wimbledon Men's Semifinal): July 13-14, London-July 13 was one of the most epic days in Wimbledon history. Eleven hours of men's semifinals, starting with the Kevin Anderson-John Isner marathon that pushed the start of Djokovic-Nadal back to 8:00 London time. And that match proved to be just as epic. In fact, it would be the second-longest semifinal in Wimbledon history (only the previous match was longer). Djokovic won the third set tiebreak to take a 2-1 lead when they had to suspend due to curfew on Friday night. Nadal then won the fourth set on Saturday. Djokovic had a little bit more in the fifth, though, taking it 6-4, 3-6, 7-6, 3-6, 10-8.
2. United States 3, Canada 2-SO (Olympic Women's Hockey Gold Medal Game): Feb. 22, PyeongChang-Oops, I did it again. That's the name of Jocelyn Lamoureux's move that put the U.S. ahead in the shootout. Maddie Rooney then stopped Meghan Agosta's attempt, and the Americans were Olympic women's hockey gold medalists for the first time in 20 years. Of course, it only got to that point because Monique Lamoureux scored with less than six minutes left after Canada had taken a 2-1 lead. The victory was made even sweeter because the U.S. had lost to Canada in the gold medal game at three of the previous four Olympics.
1. Eagles 41, Patriots 33 (Super Bowl LII): Feb. 4, Minneapolis-For the second straight year, I'm putting the Super Bowl in the top spot. And for the second straight year, I don't even think it's particularly close. The Patriots were the heavy favorites to defend their title and win their sixth Super Bowl of the Bradicheck Era. Someone forgot to tell the Eagles and backup quarterback Nick Foles. He was on the receiving end of "Philly Special," a touchdown pass that put the Eagles up 22-12 at the half. New England rallied to take a 33-32 lead, only for Foles to respond with a seven-minute, 14-play drive that gave Philadelphia a 38-33 advantage with 2:21 left. Instead of Brady doing what he normally does, though, he fumbled and the Eagles recovered in field goal range. After the field goal put them up eight, the Philly defense held, and they were Super Bowl champions.
Was the Super Bowl better than that Monday night shootout between the Rams and Chiefs in November? I'm going to say "Yes" only because of the significance of the game. Although, that one very well might've been a Super Bowl preview. And if it was, I can easily see Super Bowl LIII topping the list in 2019.
Monday, December 31, 2018
Saturday, December 29, 2018
Week 17, NFL 2018
Well, friends, we've reached the end of the line. It's not just the final days of 2018, it's also the last day of the NFL regular season. And we go into Week 17 with plenty still up in the air. We know nine of the 12 playoff teams, but only two seeds are clinched. Which means pretty much everybody else has something to play for and will be playing their starters as a result.
Of course, the teams that are completely out of it have no obligation to play starters. But nobody cares about those games where one (or both) of the coaches will be looking for new employment come Monday afternoon.
Dolphins (7-8) at Bills (5-10): Buffalo-Last year, the Bills beat the Dolphins in the finale in Miami, setting in motion a chain of events that would land them in the playoffs. Things have obviously been a bit different this season. This year, the biggest news surrounding the irrelevant finale is the Bills' Kyle Williams announcement that he's retiring after the game. The Bills like to have their Dolphins home game late in the season so that Miami has to deal with the crappy weather. Put those two things together, and you should see the other three AFC East teams end up below .500 for the season.
Lions (5-10) at Packers (6-8-1): Green Bay-Another game with absolutely no significance. The Packers did manage to get a road win (their first of the season) last week, but you have to wonder how much of that was Aaron Rodgers deciding there was no way he was losing to the Jets. At home, it's been a different story. Don't forget, their first two games were their other two division home games, and that was the crazy comeback against Chicago and the tie with Minnesota. They lost the first game to the Lions, so they'll be looking to avenge that. Plus, 7-8-1 looks a lot better than 6-9-1.
Jets (4-11) at Patriots (10-5): New England-When the Eagles kicked that last-second field goal to beat the Texans last week, there was no bigger winner than the Patriots. Because now all they need to do is beat the Jets at home to get their league-mandated first-round bye and set themselves up for their league-mandated appearance in the AFC Championship Game. It's weird that the Patriots will actually have to play their starters in this one, but they probably won't have to for long. New England is the only team in the league that's undefeated at home this season, so they also have that to play for.
Panthers (6-9) at Saints (13-2): Carolina-Towards the end of the Saints-Steelers game last week, Joe Buck made an interesting point. When New Orleans won the Super Bowl nine years ago, they went 13-3 with losses to Tampa Bay, Dallas and Carolina. Who did the Saints lose to this season? With home field locked up, they've got nothing to play for. Brees will probably play a little bit to help his MVP case, but the Saints really don't care whether or not they win this game.
Cowboys (9-6) at Giants (5-10): Giants-Ditto about Dallas. Although, the Cowboys' starters are even less likely to play since they're playing next week and the Saints aren't. Dallas is locked into the 4-seed and is pretty indifferent towards this game. They're going to treat it like the fourth preseason game. I doubt we even see Dak and Zeke. And if the Giants' starters can't beat the Cowboys' backups...
Falcons (6-9) at Buccaneers (5-10): Atlanta-Atlanta is ending the season strong. The Falcons have won two straight and played perhaps their best game of the season last week. The fact that those two games were against Arizona and Carolina is irrelevant. Because Tampa Bay falls into that group, as well. I'd be shocked if this isn't Dirk Koetter's final game as Bucs head coach. Dan Quinn is probably safe. But you can bet he'd like to finish 7-9 instead of 6-10 just in case there is still any uncertainty.
Jaguars (5-10) at Texans (10-5): Houston-The Texans are in an interesting spot. They can still be No. 2 in the AFC...or they can end up the road team in that AFC South wild card game. The only way that happens is if they lose to the Jaguars, so you know they want to at least take care of that piece of business then see what happens with the Patriots. Although, I think they know that having to rely on the Jets means it's likely they'll be playing next week.
Chargers (11-4) at Broncos (6-9): Chargers-That one-point loss to Denver in Week 11 could end up being the difference between the 1-seed and the 5-seed in the AFC for the Chargers. Of course, the Chiefs' loss in Seattle last week means they still have a shot for it, but they have the far more difficult assignment. Had they taken care of the Ravens, they wouldn't be in this situation. All they can do is take care of business and hope the Raiders help them out.
Raiders (4-11) at Chiefs (11-4): Kansas City-It's crazy to think that Kansas City has been the best team in the AFC all season, but still hasn't clinched a damn thing (other than a playoff spot). And for them the difference between the 1-seed and the 5-seed is huge. They want to make everybody come to Arrowhead in January (and they really have no interest in playing the AFC Championship Game in Foxboro). It might be a good thing that they haven't clinched yet, though. Because after two straight losses, they need to get things right heading into the playoffs. Going against the Raiders at home is a good way to do that.
49ers (4-11) at Rams (12-3): Rams-Kansas City's situation this week is similar to the one the Rams were in last week. And they did straighten themselves out by dominating Arizona last week. And, like Kansas City, they need to take advantage of their matchup against a Bay Area opponent in the regular season finale. Because if they don't, they could end up playing next week. Which would really be shocking considering how unbeatable they were for most of the season.
Bears (11-4) at Vikings (8-6-1): Minnesota-This is perhaps the most interesting matchup of the entire week. The Bears can still get a bye if they win and the Rams lose. Or they can win and not get a bye if the Rams win. And if the Vikings win, these two could very well meet again next week in a wild card game. Or Minnesota could be out entirely with a loss. So, yeah, it's a big game. Minnesota has a little more urgency, though, which I think will make the difference.
Bengals (6-9) at Steelers (8-6-1): Pittsburgh-There was no bigger loser last week than the Steelers. Every result that could impact the Steelers negatively did and, as a result, Pittsburgh is now on the outside looking in. Although, with the way the Steelers had been playing for the last several weeks, it can't be a complete surprise that they're in this dilemma. They can't even worry about what's going on in Baltimore. Because if they lose--at home--to the Bengals--it doesn't matter what happens in the Browns-Ravens game.
Cardinals (3-12) at Seahawks (9-6): Seattle-I'm not sure Seattle has any preference as to their opponent next week. If they lose and the Vikings win, they'll drop to the 6-seed. Otherwise, they're headed to Dallas. Again, I'm not really sure it matters to the Seahawks. We'll likely find out whether or not it does based on how much Russell Wilson plays. Either way, the Cardinals have the inside track at the No. 1 pick, so they may not want to screw that up.
Eagles (8-7) at Redskins (7-8): Philadelphia-Each of the five NFC teams that have already clinched a playoff berth are likely either rooting for the Vikings to beat the Bears or the Redskins to win this one. Because they have no interest in seeing the Philadelphia Eagles in the playoffs. Not with the way they've been playing over the past month. Contrast that to the Redskins, who've completely fallen apart since Alex Smith went down. Washington is ready for the season to end. Philly hopes it'll keep going. They'll do they only thing they can and win, then see if the Bears can help them out.
Browns (7-7-1) at Ravens (9-6): Cleveland-Who ever could've predicted that Cleveland-Baltimore would be one of the biggest games of Week 17? In fact, it's the Nantz-Romo game! What's even crazier is that if the Browns had won that game they tied with the Steelers, this one would be for the division title. The fact that Cleveland has a say in who'll win the AFC North is crazy enough! Baltimore had everything go their way last week. Now the Ravens are in the driver's seat. They win, they're not just in the playoffs. They're hosting the AFC West team that they either beat or should've beaten. (The Ravens can also still technically be the 3-seed.) Problem is, beating Cleveland is easier said than done. Just like Bills fans were donating to Andy Dalton's charity after the Bengals got them in at the Ravens' expense last year, it's not that far-fetched to see Steelers fans doing the same to the charity of Baker Mayfield's choice. Will the Ravens get knocked out with a Week 17 loss two years in a row?
Colts (9-6) at Titans (9-6): Tennessee-Speaking of things no one would've predicted, you've got Tennessee and Indianapolis in game 256, with the winner heading to the playoffs. (It's not New Year's Eve, so we get a Week 17 Sunday night game this year.) It could even be for the AFC South title if Jacksonville beats Houston. And they're both red hot. Tennessee has won four straight and Indy has won seven out of eight after starting 1-5. If the Colts win, it'll also mean that the AFC South will be the only division to have sent all of its teams to the playoffs in the last two seasons. The Titans have been superb at home, though. It's not a coincidence that this run has come during their season-ending stretch where they played four of their last five in Nashville. They've both had tremendous seasons. I think the Titans are better. And they're at home. They make the playoffs in back-to-back years for the first time since 2007-08.
Last Week: 10-6
Season: 151-87-2
Of course, the teams that are completely out of it have no obligation to play starters. But nobody cares about those games where one (or both) of the coaches will be looking for new employment come Monday afternoon.
Dolphins (7-8) at Bills (5-10): Buffalo-Last year, the Bills beat the Dolphins in the finale in Miami, setting in motion a chain of events that would land them in the playoffs. Things have obviously been a bit different this season. This year, the biggest news surrounding the irrelevant finale is the Bills' Kyle Williams announcement that he's retiring after the game. The Bills like to have their Dolphins home game late in the season so that Miami has to deal with the crappy weather. Put those two things together, and you should see the other three AFC East teams end up below .500 for the season.
Lions (5-10) at Packers (6-8-1): Green Bay-Another game with absolutely no significance. The Packers did manage to get a road win (their first of the season) last week, but you have to wonder how much of that was Aaron Rodgers deciding there was no way he was losing to the Jets. At home, it's been a different story. Don't forget, their first two games were their other two division home games, and that was the crazy comeback against Chicago and the tie with Minnesota. They lost the first game to the Lions, so they'll be looking to avenge that. Plus, 7-8-1 looks a lot better than 6-9-1.
Jets (4-11) at Patriots (10-5): New England-When the Eagles kicked that last-second field goal to beat the Texans last week, there was no bigger winner than the Patriots. Because now all they need to do is beat the Jets at home to get their league-mandated first-round bye and set themselves up for their league-mandated appearance in the AFC Championship Game. It's weird that the Patriots will actually have to play their starters in this one, but they probably won't have to for long. New England is the only team in the league that's undefeated at home this season, so they also have that to play for.
Panthers (6-9) at Saints (13-2): Carolina-Towards the end of the Saints-Steelers game last week, Joe Buck made an interesting point. When New Orleans won the Super Bowl nine years ago, they went 13-3 with losses to Tampa Bay, Dallas and Carolina. Who did the Saints lose to this season? With home field locked up, they've got nothing to play for. Brees will probably play a little bit to help his MVP case, but the Saints really don't care whether or not they win this game.
Cowboys (9-6) at Giants (5-10): Giants-Ditto about Dallas. Although, the Cowboys' starters are even less likely to play since they're playing next week and the Saints aren't. Dallas is locked into the 4-seed and is pretty indifferent towards this game. They're going to treat it like the fourth preseason game. I doubt we even see Dak and Zeke. And if the Giants' starters can't beat the Cowboys' backups...
Falcons (6-9) at Buccaneers (5-10): Atlanta-Atlanta is ending the season strong. The Falcons have won two straight and played perhaps their best game of the season last week. The fact that those two games were against Arizona and Carolina is irrelevant. Because Tampa Bay falls into that group, as well. I'd be shocked if this isn't Dirk Koetter's final game as Bucs head coach. Dan Quinn is probably safe. But you can bet he'd like to finish 7-9 instead of 6-10 just in case there is still any uncertainty.
Jaguars (5-10) at Texans (10-5): Houston-The Texans are in an interesting spot. They can still be No. 2 in the AFC...or they can end up the road team in that AFC South wild card game. The only way that happens is if they lose to the Jaguars, so you know they want to at least take care of that piece of business then see what happens with the Patriots. Although, I think they know that having to rely on the Jets means it's likely they'll be playing next week.
Chargers (11-4) at Broncos (6-9): Chargers-That one-point loss to Denver in Week 11 could end up being the difference between the 1-seed and the 5-seed in the AFC for the Chargers. Of course, the Chiefs' loss in Seattle last week means they still have a shot for it, but they have the far more difficult assignment. Had they taken care of the Ravens, they wouldn't be in this situation. All they can do is take care of business and hope the Raiders help them out.
Raiders (4-11) at Chiefs (11-4): Kansas City-It's crazy to think that Kansas City has been the best team in the AFC all season, but still hasn't clinched a damn thing (other than a playoff spot). And for them the difference between the 1-seed and the 5-seed is huge. They want to make everybody come to Arrowhead in January (and they really have no interest in playing the AFC Championship Game in Foxboro). It might be a good thing that they haven't clinched yet, though. Because after two straight losses, they need to get things right heading into the playoffs. Going against the Raiders at home is a good way to do that.
49ers (4-11) at Rams (12-3): Rams-Kansas City's situation this week is similar to the one the Rams were in last week. And they did straighten themselves out by dominating Arizona last week. And, like Kansas City, they need to take advantage of their matchup against a Bay Area opponent in the regular season finale. Because if they don't, they could end up playing next week. Which would really be shocking considering how unbeatable they were for most of the season.
Bears (11-4) at Vikings (8-6-1): Minnesota-This is perhaps the most interesting matchup of the entire week. The Bears can still get a bye if they win and the Rams lose. Or they can win and not get a bye if the Rams win. And if the Vikings win, these two could very well meet again next week in a wild card game. Or Minnesota could be out entirely with a loss. So, yeah, it's a big game. Minnesota has a little more urgency, though, which I think will make the difference.
Bengals (6-9) at Steelers (8-6-1): Pittsburgh-There was no bigger loser last week than the Steelers. Every result that could impact the Steelers negatively did and, as a result, Pittsburgh is now on the outside looking in. Although, with the way the Steelers had been playing for the last several weeks, it can't be a complete surprise that they're in this dilemma. They can't even worry about what's going on in Baltimore. Because if they lose--at home--to the Bengals--it doesn't matter what happens in the Browns-Ravens game.
Cardinals (3-12) at Seahawks (9-6): Seattle-I'm not sure Seattle has any preference as to their opponent next week. If they lose and the Vikings win, they'll drop to the 6-seed. Otherwise, they're headed to Dallas. Again, I'm not really sure it matters to the Seahawks. We'll likely find out whether or not it does based on how much Russell Wilson plays. Either way, the Cardinals have the inside track at the No. 1 pick, so they may not want to screw that up.
Eagles (8-7) at Redskins (7-8): Philadelphia-Each of the five NFC teams that have already clinched a playoff berth are likely either rooting for the Vikings to beat the Bears or the Redskins to win this one. Because they have no interest in seeing the Philadelphia Eagles in the playoffs. Not with the way they've been playing over the past month. Contrast that to the Redskins, who've completely fallen apart since Alex Smith went down. Washington is ready for the season to end. Philly hopes it'll keep going. They'll do they only thing they can and win, then see if the Bears can help them out.
Browns (7-7-1) at Ravens (9-6): Cleveland-Who ever could've predicted that Cleveland-Baltimore would be one of the biggest games of Week 17? In fact, it's the Nantz-Romo game! What's even crazier is that if the Browns had won that game they tied with the Steelers, this one would be for the division title. The fact that Cleveland has a say in who'll win the AFC North is crazy enough! Baltimore had everything go their way last week. Now the Ravens are in the driver's seat. They win, they're not just in the playoffs. They're hosting the AFC West team that they either beat or should've beaten. (The Ravens can also still technically be the 3-seed.) Problem is, beating Cleveland is easier said than done. Just like Bills fans were donating to Andy Dalton's charity after the Bengals got them in at the Ravens' expense last year, it's not that far-fetched to see Steelers fans doing the same to the charity of Baker Mayfield's choice. Will the Ravens get knocked out with a Week 17 loss two years in a row?
Colts (9-6) at Titans (9-6): Tennessee-Speaking of things no one would've predicted, you've got Tennessee and Indianapolis in game 256, with the winner heading to the playoffs. (It's not New Year's Eve, so we get a Week 17 Sunday night game this year.) It could even be for the AFC South title if Jacksonville beats Houston. And they're both red hot. Tennessee has won four straight and Indy has won seven out of eight after starting 1-5. If the Colts win, it'll also mean that the AFC South will be the only division to have sent all of its teams to the playoffs in the last two seasons. The Titans have been superb at home, though. It's not a coincidence that this run has come during their season-ending stretch where they played four of their last five in Nashville. They've both had tremendous seasons. I think the Titans are better. And they're at home. They make the playoffs in back-to-back years for the first time since 2007-08.
Last Week: 10-6
Season: 151-87-2
Thursday, December 27, 2018
Recapping 2018
What can I say about the last 12 months in sports? Just like any other year, 2018 was memorable in its own right. We saw the continuation of an NBA dynasty, an all-time great team in Boston, the greatest inaugural season by an expansion team ever, and long-suffering fan bases finally get to celebrate championships. After thinking we might never see another Triple Crown, we had our second in five years. And two all-time greats rose back to the top of their respective sports. Oh, yeah, there was an Olympics and a World Cup, too.
January was kinda uneventful. New York hosted the Winter Classic, Alabama won its 35th consecutive College Football Playoff National Championship and Caroline Wozniacki finally became a Grand Slam champion. Roger Federer, meanwhile, defended his Australian Open title on the men's side.
Then came February and a play called the "Philly Special." Every Super Bowl has its defining play, and that was certainly it in Super Bowl LII. A touchdown pass to the quarterback that lifted the Eagles to their first Super Bowl title! Less than a week later, the Winter Olympics started, and PyeongChang provided plenty of memorable moments. The two I'll always hold above the rest are the USA men's curling team's gold medal and that wonderful victory scream by Jessie Diggins. Russia also won (but not really) the NHL-less men's hockey tournament that saw Germany make it all the way to the gold medal game.
March was also somewhat quiet. My girlfriend Sandi Morris did win her first World Championship, at World Indoors in Birmingham, but the Madness didn't really get that mad until the end of the month/beginning of April, when Notre Dame's Arike Ogunbowale had one of the most insane Final Fours ever, hitting the game-winner against UConn in the semis before winning the national title with a buzzer beater against Mississippi State. And Loyola-Chicago made the men's Final Four.
Tiger Woods didn't win the Masters, but he was in contention, which was the first indication that his injury issues might be behind him. He may not be the Tiger of Old. But, for at least one year, he was relevant again. The NHL regular season also ended in April, and the Vegas Golden Knights closed out their inaugural year as the Pacific Division champions. Desiree Linden won the Boston Marathon in the rain, becoming the first American woman in 33 years to do so. April ended with the NFL Draft, and the Browns began their ascent back into being an actual professional football team by taking Baker Mayfield first overall.
Justify got May underway by winning the Kentucky Derby. That was just the start of a magical five-week run that ended with the 13th Triple Crown in history. Clay Boy also began his run to his 29th straight French Open title, while Simona Halep followed Woz's lead and won her first Grand Slam crown on the red clay of Roland Garros. And Will Power made me look smart by winning the Indy 500 after I picked him to for like the fifth year in a row.
NBC calls late May/early June "Championship Season," and it's easy to see why. Justify finished off the Triple Crown in June. And Alex Ovechkin won the award for Celebration of the Year after clinching the Stanley Cup in June...against a Golden Knights squad that had an inaugural season that shattered all expectations and set a new bar for all future expansion teams. The Warriors also won their annual NBA Finals matchup with LeBron in June. Also in June, Brooks Koepka became the first repeat U.S. Open winner in 30 years.
Wimbledon had a historic 11-hour semifinal Friday before crowning Angelique Kerber and Novak Djokovic as champions. That crazy month-long soccer tournament in Russia ended the same mid-summer weekend as Wimbledon. In an unpredictable World Cup that saw all of the favorites fall by the wayside early on, France, which was the best team all month, emerged as champions over an entertaining and inspiring Croatian squad made an impressive run to the final. The United States wasn't there, but was announced as the primary host of the 2026 event, which softened the blow a little bit. The Rugby World Cup Sevens was held in San Francisco like a week later, and the stands were packed all three days. Meanwhile, the MLB All*Star Game in Washington featured 10 home runs by 10 different players.
August is usually a pretty hectic month, but, this being the non-Olympic even year, August 2018 was actually pretty light. That doesn't mean nothing happened, though. The United States qualified for the first Olympic softball tournament in 12 years by winning the gold medal at the World Championships. We also had one of the most bizarre Hall of Fame inductions ever when T.O. decided to (surprise, surprise) make his all about himself and hold his own ceremony instead of joining the rest of the Class in Canton.
A lot of headlines were made at the US Open. Serena Williams was at the center of the controversy with her little temper tantrum in the women's final that completely overshadowed Naomi Osaka's dominant performance. There was a lot of hope that the Americans would finally win a Ryder Cup in Europe for the first time since 1993. Those hopes were quickly dashed. The United States did, however, continue its reign in women's basketball, winning the World Cup for the third straight time.
October, of course, means, first and foremost, playoff baseball. The Boston Red Sox put together a season for the ages, winning 108 games in the regular season. Their postseason was just as dominant, and they capped their historic campaign with their fourth World Series title in 15 years. The 2018 World Series also gave us an incredible Game 3 marathon that took 18 innings and seven-and-a-half hours before the Dodgers won. Speaking of LA, LeBron left Cleveland for the second time and signed with the Lakers. We'll have to wait until 2019 to figure out how he'll represent the Eastern Conference in the Finals for the ninth straight year.
Also in October, the U.S. women made sure they wouldn't have the same issue as the men's team by securing their place in the 2019 Women's World Cup. Simone Biles returned to competition and picked up right where she left off, winning four golds, a silver and a bronze (in six events) at the World Championships.
As usual, the NASCAR champion was crowned in November. This time it was Joey Logano clinching the title with a victory in the season finale at Homestead-Miami Speedway. Other than that, things were generally pretty slow in November and December, as we look forward to the Women's World Cup and all of the other events ahead in 2019. The biggest news over the last two months has been Seattle getting an NHL expansion team to start play in 2021-22 and the 2026 Winter Olympics coming down to bids from Italy and Sweden.
Sadly, some of the issues that plagued sports in 2017 continued into 2018. Russia was suspended from the PyeongChang Olympics because of its doping problems. Doping problems that still linger. Larry Nassar's victims were finally heard and began to get justice, while Colin Kaepernick and the NFL anthem controversy still hasn't gone away.
We also mourned the losses of history-makers (Roger Bannister) and pioneers (David Pearson), Olympic champions (Irina Szewinska) and Hall of Famers (Jim Taylor, Willie McCovey, Stan Mikita), coaches (Chuck Knox) and team owners (Tom Benson, Paul Allen, Bob McNair), legendary broadcasters (Keith Jackson) and a sports-loving former President (George Bush), as well as a trio of college athletes who died way too young (Tyler Hilinski, Celia Barquin Arozamena, Lauren McCluskey), along with so many others.
That was 2018. Who knows what 2019 has in store? But as one year ends and another begins, it's a pretty safe bet that 2019 will provide us with plenty of memorable moments, too.
January was kinda uneventful. New York hosted the Winter Classic, Alabama won its 35th consecutive College Football Playoff National Championship and Caroline Wozniacki finally became a Grand Slam champion. Roger Federer, meanwhile, defended his Australian Open title on the men's side.
Then came February and a play called the "Philly Special." Every Super Bowl has its defining play, and that was certainly it in Super Bowl LII. A touchdown pass to the quarterback that lifted the Eagles to their first Super Bowl title! Less than a week later, the Winter Olympics started, and PyeongChang provided plenty of memorable moments. The two I'll always hold above the rest are the USA men's curling team's gold medal and that wonderful victory scream by Jessie Diggins. Russia also won (but not really) the NHL-less men's hockey tournament that saw Germany make it all the way to the gold medal game.
March was also somewhat quiet. My girlfriend Sandi Morris did win her first World Championship, at World Indoors in Birmingham, but the Madness didn't really get that mad until the end of the month/beginning of April, when Notre Dame's Arike Ogunbowale had one of the most insane Final Fours ever, hitting the game-winner against UConn in the semis before winning the national title with a buzzer beater against Mississippi State. And Loyola-Chicago made the men's Final Four.
Tiger Woods didn't win the Masters, but he was in contention, which was the first indication that his injury issues might be behind him. He may not be the Tiger of Old. But, for at least one year, he was relevant again. The NHL regular season also ended in April, and the Vegas Golden Knights closed out their inaugural year as the Pacific Division champions. Desiree Linden won the Boston Marathon in the rain, becoming the first American woman in 33 years to do so. April ended with the NFL Draft, and the Browns began their ascent back into being an actual professional football team by taking Baker Mayfield first overall.
Justify got May underway by winning the Kentucky Derby. That was just the start of a magical five-week run that ended with the 13th Triple Crown in history. Clay Boy also began his run to his 29th straight French Open title, while Simona Halep followed Woz's lead and won her first Grand Slam crown on the red clay of Roland Garros. And Will Power made me look smart by winning the Indy 500 after I picked him to for like the fifth year in a row.
NBC calls late May/early June "Championship Season," and it's easy to see why. Justify finished off the Triple Crown in June. And Alex Ovechkin won the award for Celebration of the Year after clinching the Stanley Cup in June...against a Golden Knights squad that had an inaugural season that shattered all expectations and set a new bar for all future expansion teams. The Warriors also won their annual NBA Finals matchup with LeBron in June. Also in June, Brooks Koepka became the first repeat U.S. Open winner in 30 years.
Wimbledon had a historic 11-hour semifinal Friday before crowning Angelique Kerber and Novak Djokovic as champions. That crazy month-long soccer tournament in Russia ended the same mid-summer weekend as Wimbledon. In an unpredictable World Cup that saw all of the favorites fall by the wayside early on, France, which was the best team all month, emerged as champions over an entertaining and inspiring Croatian squad made an impressive run to the final. The United States wasn't there, but was announced as the primary host of the 2026 event, which softened the blow a little bit. The Rugby World Cup Sevens was held in San Francisco like a week later, and the stands were packed all three days. Meanwhile, the MLB All*Star Game in Washington featured 10 home runs by 10 different players.
August is usually a pretty hectic month, but, this being the non-Olympic even year, August 2018 was actually pretty light. That doesn't mean nothing happened, though. The United States qualified for the first Olympic softball tournament in 12 years by winning the gold medal at the World Championships. We also had one of the most bizarre Hall of Fame inductions ever when T.O. decided to (surprise, surprise) make his all about himself and hold his own ceremony instead of joining the rest of the Class in Canton.
A lot of headlines were made at the US Open. Serena Williams was at the center of the controversy with her little temper tantrum in the women's final that completely overshadowed Naomi Osaka's dominant performance. There was a lot of hope that the Americans would finally win a Ryder Cup in Europe for the first time since 1993. Those hopes were quickly dashed. The United States did, however, continue its reign in women's basketball, winning the World Cup for the third straight time.
October, of course, means, first and foremost, playoff baseball. The Boston Red Sox put together a season for the ages, winning 108 games in the regular season. Their postseason was just as dominant, and they capped their historic campaign with their fourth World Series title in 15 years. The 2018 World Series also gave us an incredible Game 3 marathon that took 18 innings and seven-and-a-half hours before the Dodgers won. Speaking of LA, LeBron left Cleveland for the second time and signed with the Lakers. We'll have to wait until 2019 to figure out how he'll represent the Eastern Conference in the Finals for the ninth straight year.
Also in October, the U.S. women made sure they wouldn't have the same issue as the men's team by securing their place in the 2019 Women's World Cup. Simone Biles returned to competition and picked up right where she left off, winning four golds, a silver and a bronze (in six events) at the World Championships.
As usual, the NASCAR champion was crowned in November. This time it was Joey Logano clinching the title with a victory in the season finale at Homestead-Miami Speedway. Other than that, things were generally pretty slow in November and December, as we look forward to the Women's World Cup and all of the other events ahead in 2019. The biggest news over the last two months has been Seattle getting an NHL expansion team to start play in 2021-22 and the 2026 Winter Olympics coming down to bids from Italy and Sweden.
Sadly, some of the issues that plagued sports in 2017 continued into 2018. Russia was suspended from the PyeongChang Olympics because of its doping problems. Doping problems that still linger. Larry Nassar's victims were finally heard and began to get justice, while Colin Kaepernick and the NFL anthem controversy still hasn't gone away.
We also mourned the losses of history-makers (Roger Bannister) and pioneers (David Pearson), Olympic champions (Irina Szewinska) and Hall of Famers (Jim Taylor, Willie McCovey, Stan Mikita), coaches (Chuck Knox) and team owners (Tom Benson, Paul Allen, Bob McNair), legendary broadcasters (Keith Jackson) and a sports-loving former President (George Bush), as well as a trio of college athletes who died way too young (Tyler Hilinski, Celia Barquin Arozamena, Lauren McCluskey), along with so many others.
That was 2018. Who knows what 2019 has in store? But as one year ends and another begins, it's a pretty safe bet that 2019 will provide us with plenty of memorable moments, too.
Sunday, December 23, 2018
Times Are A-Changing In Tennis
John Isner's epic Wimbledon match against Nicolas Mahut in 2010 will live in tennis history for a number of reasons. There was its length, of course, and that incredible 70-68 fifth set that will make it last for all-time.
Isner was involved in another all-time match at Wimbledon this past summer, when he lost to Kevin Anderson 26-24 in the fifth after six-and-a-half hours. That was the third-longest match in tennis history, and it pushed the start of the Novak Djokovic-Rafa Nadal semifinal back to 8:00 local time. The one ended up taking more than five hours over two days (for context, the total time of those two matches was only about 45 minutes longer than Isner-Mahut).
And that was evidently the last straw for the powers that be at Wimbledon. Because the All-England Club announced in October that starting in 2019, there will be a final set tiebreaker at Wimbledon, which pretty much guarantees those two Inser matches will remain Nos. 1 & 2 as the longest in Wimbledon history. It also means we'll no longer have finals like that Roger Federer-Andy Roddick classic in 2009 that went 16-14 in the fifth.
They won't immediately go to the tiebreaker at 6-6 like they would in any other set (and they do at the US Open). Instead the players will have an opportunity to play it out until 12-12. If it gets to 12-12, however, they'll go to the tiebreaker.
Personally, I never thought tradition-rich Wimbledon would ever take this step, which is something players, fans and TV broadcasters have been pushing for a long time. And the 11-hour men's semifinals (which pushed the final two sets of Djokovic-Nadal into Saturday before the women's final) seems to have been the impetus for change. Just like that year it rained the entire second week of the US Open, prompting the USTA to finally do away with its Saturday-Sunday schedule for the semifinals and final.
As it turns out, Wimbledon isn't the only Grand Slam doing away with its long-standing tradition of not having a tiebreaker in the decisive set. The Australian Open just announced that they, too, will start having a final set tiebreaker when the tournament begins next month. They'll also put their own variation on it. They'll go to the tiebreaker at 6-6 like normal, but instead of the standard 7-point tiebreaker, they'll play to 10 points (the 10-point tiebreaker has been used in doubles for several years).
So, after years where the US Open was the only Grand Slam that had final set tiebreakers, starting in 2019, the French Open will be the only Grand Slam without them. It also means that the four Grand Slam tournaments will have four different formats for the decisive set.
Both tournaments had their own reasons for making the change, which did seem inevitable. Long Wimbledon matches were, in a way, like long extra inning games. Extra inning games often end up going longer than they probably should because everybody's trying to hit a home run. At Wimbledon, it's usually because they're both serving at such a high level that neither one even has a chance to get a break. And, as painful as it gets as the hours go on, you can't look away from either.
At the Australian Open, the real concern is the heat. January is the middle of the summer in Australia, and temperatures for daytime matches often break 100. The extreme heat policy that's now utilized across the board started in Australia, and rare is the Australian Open match that doesn't feature a mandatory 10-minute break between sets. And, unlike Wimbledon, which sometimes uses the roof for light, and the US Open, which does it because of rain, most of the time when the roof is closed in Australia, it's because of the heat.
There are also the injury concerns. Isner's 11-hour, three-day match against Mahut was in the first round. He had to play his second round match the next day and lost in straight sets after little more than an hour. He was at least able to walk out on the court (barely) for that match. A lot of players, though, end up having to retire in the next round or later in the tournament because of the toll that the extra-long match took on their bodies. (These issues are mainly related to men's players. The women only play best-of-three, so even a long third set isn't nearly as taxing.)
Regardless, things have been shifting in this direction for a while. It's what the players wanted, which was the clearest sign it was going to happen eventually. Likewise, I'm sure the tournament organizers weren't overly pleased with the number of retirements and withdrawals that are a direct result of extended matches. Not to mention the havoc they wreak on the schedules (the Wimbledon women's final didn't start at its traditional time of 2:00 because the end of Djokovic-Nadal took longer than they expected). And that's where it starts to affect the worldwide TV partners, too.
Still, to have two Grand Slam tournaments change themselves so fundamentally in the same year is pretty shocking. It makes you wonder when the French are going to follow suit. Especially since matches on clay tend to be longer in the first place because of the style of play. I have a feeling it won't be too long. Perhaps when the retractable roof at Court Phillipe Chatrier is completed in time for Clay Boy's 35th consecutive French Open title in 2021.
In a way, it's nice to know that the tournament organizers have listened to everybody's concerns and instituted the final set tiebreaker. And it's nice to know that there'll be a finish line. It'll let everyone know that a resolution is coming. And, as the US Open has proven, that conclusion won't be any less dramatic. In fact, I'd argue that the final set tiebreaker is more dramatic. It's certainly more exciting.
Although, I'll admit it, I'll miss the long five-setters. Those matches weren't as frequent as you're led to believe. They're just the ones people talk about. And the reason people talk about them is because of how memorable they are. I'll never forget watching John Isner's three-day match in 2010 or that crazy semifinal Friday last July.
Days like that are now a thing of the past, however. Just like wood rackets and long pants/skirts. But, change isn't always a bad thing. The introduction of the tiebreak and instant replay both changed the sport in incredible ways.
There will still be plenty of epic Wimbledon and Australian Open matches, too. They just won't last as long as they used to. We won't have Wimbledon matches taking three days or Australian Open finals that last until the next morning. And maybe that'll make for a better tournament, which would certainly make the whole thing worthwhile.
Isner was involved in another all-time match at Wimbledon this past summer, when he lost to Kevin Anderson 26-24 in the fifth after six-and-a-half hours. That was the third-longest match in tennis history, and it pushed the start of the Novak Djokovic-Rafa Nadal semifinal back to 8:00 local time. The one ended up taking more than five hours over two days (for context, the total time of those two matches was only about 45 minutes longer than Isner-Mahut).
And that was evidently the last straw for the powers that be at Wimbledon. Because the All-England Club announced in October that starting in 2019, there will be a final set tiebreaker at Wimbledon, which pretty much guarantees those two Inser matches will remain Nos. 1 & 2 as the longest in Wimbledon history. It also means we'll no longer have finals like that Roger Federer-Andy Roddick classic in 2009 that went 16-14 in the fifth.
They won't immediately go to the tiebreaker at 6-6 like they would in any other set (and they do at the US Open). Instead the players will have an opportunity to play it out until 12-12. If it gets to 12-12, however, they'll go to the tiebreaker.
Personally, I never thought tradition-rich Wimbledon would ever take this step, which is something players, fans and TV broadcasters have been pushing for a long time. And the 11-hour men's semifinals (which pushed the final two sets of Djokovic-Nadal into Saturday before the women's final) seems to have been the impetus for change. Just like that year it rained the entire second week of the US Open, prompting the USTA to finally do away with its Saturday-Sunday schedule for the semifinals and final.
As it turns out, Wimbledon isn't the only Grand Slam doing away with its long-standing tradition of not having a tiebreaker in the decisive set. The Australian Open just announced that they, too, will start having a final set tiebreaker when the tournament begins next month. They'll also put their own variation on it. They'll go to the tiebreaker at 6-6 like normal, but instead of the standard 7-point tiebreaker, they'll play to 10 points (the 10-point tiebreaker has been used in doubles for several years).
So, after years where the US Open was the only Grand Slam that had final set tiebreakers, starting in 2019, the French Open will be the only Grand Slam without them. It also means that the four Grand Slam tournaments will have four different formats for the decisive set.
Both tournaments had their own reasons for making the change, which did seem inevitable. Long Wimbledon matches were, in a way, like long extra inning games. Extra inning games often end up going longer than they probably should because everybody's trying to hit a home run. At Wimbledon, it's usually because they're both serving at such a high level that neither one even has a chance to get a break. And, as painful as it gets as the hours go on, you can't look away from either.
At the Australian Open, the real concern is the heat. January is the middle of the summer in Australia, and temperatures for daytime matches often break 100. The extreme heat policy that's now utilized across the board started in Australia, and rare is the Australian Open match that doesn't feature a mandatory 10-minute break between sets. And, unlike Wimbledon, which sometimes uses the roof for light, and the US Open, which does it because of rain, most of the time when the roof is closed in Australia, it's because of the heat.
There are also the injury concerns. Isner's 11-hour, three-day match against Mahut was in the first round. He had to play his second round match the next day and lost in straight sets after little more than an hour. He was at least able to walk out on the court (barely) for that match. A lot of players, though, end up having to retire in the next round or later in the tournament because of the toll that the extra-long match took on their bodies. (These issues are mainly related to men's players. The women only play best-of-three, so even a long third set isn't nearly as taxing.)
Regardless, things have been shifting in this direction for a while. It's what the players wanted, which was the clearest sign it was going to happen eventually. Likewise, I'm sure the tournament organizers weren't overly pleased with the number of retirements and withdrawals that are a direct result of extended matches. Not to mention the havoc they wreak on the schedules (the Wimbledon women's final didn't start at its traditional time of 2:00 because the end of Djokovic-Nadal took longer than they expected). And that's where it starts to affect the worldwide TV partners, too.
Still, to have two Grand Slam tournaments change themselves so fundamentally in the same year is pretty shocking. It makes you wonder when the French are going to follow suit. Especially since matches on clay tend to be longer in the first place because of the style of play. I have a feeling it won't be too long. Perhaps when the retractable roof at Court Phillipe Chatrier is completed in time for Clay Boy's 35th consecutive French Open title in 2021.
In a way, it's nice to know that the tournament organizers have listened to everybody's concerns and instituted the final set tiebreaker. And it's nice to know that there'll be a finish line. It'll let everyone know that a resolution is coming. And, as the US Open has proven, that conclusion won't be any less dramatic. In fact, I'd argue that the final set tiebreaker is more dramatic. It's certainly more exciting.
Although, I'll admit it, I'll miss the long five-setters. Those matches weren't as frequent as you're led to believe. They're just the ones people talk about. And the reason people talk about them is because of how memorable they are. I'll never forget watching John Isner's three-day match in 2010 or that crazy semifinal Friday last July.
Days like that are now a thing of the past, however. Just like wood rackets and long pants/skirts. But, change isn't always a bad thing. The introduction of the tiebreak and instant replay both changed the sport in incredible ways.
There will still be plenty of epic Wimbledon and Australian Open matches, too. They just won't last as long as they used to. We won't have Wimbledon matches taking three days or Australian Open finals that last until the next morning. And maybe that'll make for a better tournament, which would certainly make the whole thing worthwhile.
Saturday, December 22, 2018
Week 16, NFL 2018
As we get down to the final eight days of the NFL regular season, it's amazing how much can still happen. Unless something crazy happens, we know all six NFC playoff teams and their seeds. But the AFC is nuts. The Texans and Patriots haven't clinched their divisions yet, but they will. The Chiefs and Chargers will be the 1- and 5-seeds, but who gets which is anybody's guess. Then there's that second wild card. The Ravens currently have it, but can also be eliminated completely this week.
I'm also going to set the odds pretty high that Titans-Colts will be next week's Sunday night game. If they both win this week and the Ravens lose, it 100 percent will be, since the winner of that matchup will get the second AFC wild card. I'll say Chicago-Minnesota also has a slight chance of being selected if the AFC is already figured out, especially if the Vikings need to win to get in. The Eagles play the Redskins, too, and that could potentially be for a wild card, so that one's still in the mix.
That's for next week, though. And a lot of that depends on what happens this week. Especially since there are a number of matchups that will have a bearing on the playoff standings.
Redskins (7-7) at Titans (8-6): Tennessee-The Titans have had a streaky season to say the least. They started 3-1. Then they lost three straight. Then they won two straight. Then they lost two straight. And now they've won two straight with a pair of home games left, and returning to the playoffs suddenly seems like a real possibility. Never mind that they're currently eighth in the AFC. They beat the Redskins, and they're likely playing for a wild card spot next week. Who knows? Maybe they'll even still have a chance to win the division. Washington, meanwhile, is still alive in the NFC, but will be all but out with a loss.
Ravens (8-6) at Chargers (11-3): Chargers-This is probably the biggest game of the weekend. If the Chargers and Chiefs have the same result this weekend, win or lose, the division and 1-seed come down to Week 17. But if the Chargers lose and Kansas City wins, the Chargers are locked into the 5-seed. So, yeah, this is a big game for them. It's also a big game for Baltimore, the current No. 6 seed. But their grip on it is precarious, especially with a trip to Southern California to face one of the best teams in the league ahead of them. My guess is it won't be a three-way tie anymore after this week.
Bengals (6-8) at Browns (6-7-1): Cleveland-Believe it or not, until the Steelers beat the Patriots late on Sunday, the Cleveland Browns still had a chance to win the AFC North. That's no longer a possibility, but they've still got plenty to play for. If they win this week, they'll sweep the Bengals. They haven't swept a division rival since doing it against the Ravens in 2007. Speaking of the Ravens, if Cleveland wins this week, then beats them next week, they'll finish with a winning record for the first time since that season.
Buccaneers (5-9) at Cowboys (8-6): Dallas-To call last week's shutout shocking would be an understatement. Dallas losing wasn't a complete surprise, but the way they just got completely destroyed sure was. As such, it delayed the Cowboys' clinching party that still seems inevitable. They'll close out the NFC East if they beat the Bucs, and they know they're essentially locked into the 4-seed (which would become official if the Bears win), so a win here will give them the opportunity to rest starters next week.
Vikings (7-6-1) at Lions (5-9): Minnesota-Minnesota survived the New England-Seattle stretch with its playoff spot in tact, and the Vikings maintained that position by putting an absolute beat down on the Dolphins last week. Now they're in a position to lock up a wild card in Week 16. They've even got a shot at avoiding back-to-back games against the Bears if they can leapfrog Seattle for the 5-seed (don't forget Minnesota has that tie, so their loss to the Seahawks doesn't really matter). But first they have to take care of business and clinch a spot, which they can't do this week if they don't beat the Lions.
Giants (5-9) at Colts (8-6): Indianapolis-Nobody wants to face the Indianapolis Colts right now. Don't forget, this is a team that started 1-5 and has now won seven out of eight. And they made a statement against Dallas last week. There's no reason to think they won't make another one against a Giants team that was also shut out by an AFC South opponent last week. Which would set up that winner-take-all matchup next week in Nashville.
Jaguars (4-10) at Dolphins (7-7): Miami-Miami's still alive for the playoffs, even if it's ever so slightly. But, in addition to getting a lot of help, the Dolphins need to win out if they're going to have any chance. At the very least, though, beating Jacksonville in their home finale will guarantee no worse than a .500 record.
Bills (5-9) at Patriots (9-5): New England-Amazingly, New England hasn't clinched the AFC East yet. With two division home games all they've got left, that'll get taken care of soon enough. The Rams' loss last week also means that the Patriots are the only team in the league with an undefeated record at home, which doesn't seem likely to change. That loss to the Steelers last week dropped them to the No. 3 seed in the AFC, though, so if they're going to get their league-mandated Wild Card Weekend bye, they're gonna need some help from either the Eagles or Jaguars.
Packers (5-8-1) at Jets (4-10): Green Bay-For the first time in the Aaron Rodgers Era, the Packers will finish with a losing record in consecutive seasons. Which seems about right for how Green Bay's season has gone. Mercifully there's only two games left. Both of which are winnable. Seeing this matchup of the first two franchises to win the Super Bowl makes me think back to the last time they played at Met Life in 2010. It was while FOX and Optimum were fighting and the Jets wrote Optimum a letter asking to let their fans be able to see the game. That was when the Jets played a max of two games on FOX a year. The fact that the Giants are on FOX virtually every week apparently didn't matter. (And, no, that has nothing to do with anything.)
Texans (10-4) at Eagles (7-7): Houston-The biggest winners of Week 15? Houston. The Texans didn't clinch the AFC South, but they moved into first-round-bye position when the Patriots lost. Now, if they win out, a bye is theirs. They'll face a tough test in Philadelphia, though. The Eagles just have a different energy around them when Nick Foles is at quarterback. Can they carry that energy to a 9-7 finish and a wild card berth? Houston, by the way, locks up a playoff berth if the Chargers win on Saturday night (that game has a bearing on four other teams this week).
Falcons (5-9) at Panthers (6-8): Atlanta-When the schedule came out, Atlanta at Carolina in Week 16 looked like a game that would be awfully significant in the NFC playoff race. Turns out, not so much. All they've got to play for is bragging rights (and .500 is still a possibility for Carolina). The Panthers saw their season unofficially officially come to an end with that strange loss to New Orleans on Monday night. A defensive two-point conversion keeps them in it, then they do nothing on the final drive?! They know they're out of it, too. That's why they shut Cam down for the season.
Rams (11-3) at Cardinals (3-11): Rams-For the first time all season, the Rams look very vulnerable. Or, maybe it's just Sunday nights. Either way, they've essentially lost any shot at the 1-seed. And now they have to worry about holding on to their bye. The good news, though, is that besides not playing on Sunday night, they're facing a woeful Cardinals team this week. And, maybe like last year's Eagles, a little late-season adversity might be just what the Rams need.
Bears (10-4) at 49ers (4-10): Chicago-Chicago clinched the division last week, but is still alive for a bye. Of course, in order to get it, they'll have to win two road games and hope the Rams lose. And the first of those road games is against a 49ers team that's won two straight (both at home). So, this won't be an easy one for the Bears. I do think they'll manage to pull it out, though.
Steelers (8-5-1) at Saints (12-2): Pittsburgh-It wasn't exactly season-saving, but beating the Patriots last week sure made the Steelers breathe a little easier. Now they end their brutal stretch of games by visiting a Saints team that likely isn't leaving the Superdome until the Super Bowl. New Orleans just has to win one of its two remaining games to lock up NFC home field, which I'm sure they'd love to get out of the way this week. The Steelers will know beforehand if they can clinch the AFC North, so, if Baltimore loses, somebody's clinching something in this one.
Chiefs (11-3) at Seahawks (8-6): Kansas City-Suddenly, we're facing the possibility of Kansas City not playing a single playoff home game. All because of a bold call on a two-point conversion. The Chiefs will get some breathing room if the Ravens beat the Chargers, but if not, they'll have even more pressure on them Sunday night. And they have the far harder matchup this weekend. Going to Seattle is never easy. Especially when the Seahawks have a chance to lock up a playoff berth. This might be just the test the Chiefs need, though.
Broncos (6-8) at Raiders (3-11): Oakland-Last year, the Raiders played the Monday night game on Christmas, and it's what got the ball rolling on Jon Gruden's return to coaching. This year they host the Christmas Eve Monday night game for what will likely be the final NFL game in Oakland. It looks like the might have their stadium situation next season figured out (they'll go from sharing a stadium with one Bay Area baseball team to sharing with the other). They'll either be really pumped up for their last game on the East Bay. Or they'll get their butts kicked. I'm not sure which.
Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 141-81-2
I'm also going to set the odds pretty high that Titans-Colts will be next week's Sunday night game. If they both win this week and the Ravens lose, it 100 percent will be, since the winner of that matchup will get the second AFC wild card. I'll say Chicago-Minnesota also has a slight chance of being selected if the AFC is already figured out, especially if the Vikings need to win to get in. The Eagles play the Redskins, too, and that could potentially be for a wild card, so that one's still in the mix.
That's for next week, though. And a lot of that depends on what happens this week. Especially since there are a number of matchups that will have a bearing on the playoff standings.
Redskins (7-7) at Titans (8-6): Tennessee-The Titans have had a streaky season to say the least. They started 3-1. Then they lost three straight. Then they won two straight. Then they lost two straight. And now they've won two straight with a pair of home games left, and returning to the playoffs suddenly seems like a real possibility. Never mind that they're currently eighth in the AFC. They beat the Redskins, and they're likely playing for a wild card spot next week. Who knows? Maybe they'll even still have a chance to win the division. Washington, meanwhile, is still alive in the NFC, but will be all but out with a loss.
Ravens (8-6) at Chargers (11-3): Chargers-This is probably the biggest game of the weekend. If the Chargers and Chiefs have the same result this weekend, win or lose, the division and 1-seed come down to Week 17. But if the Chargers lose and Kansas City wins, the Chargers are locked into the 5-seed. So, yeah, this is a big game for them. It's also a big game for Baltimore, the current No. 6 seed. But their grip on it is precarious, especially with a trip to Southern California to face one of the best teams in the league ahead of them. My guess is it won't be a three-way tie anymore after this week.
Bengals (6-8) at Browns (6-7-1): Cleveland-Believe it or not, until the Steelers beat the Patriots late on Sunday, the Cleveland Browns still had a chance to win the AFC North. That's no longer a possibility, but they've still got plenty to play for. If they win this week, they'll sweep the Bengals. They haven't swept a division rival since doing it against the Ravens in 2007. Speaking of the Ravens, if Cleveland wins this week, then beats them next week, they'll finish with a winning record for the first time since that season.
Buccaneers (5-9) at Cowboys (8-6): Dallas-To call last week's shutout shocking would be an understatement. Dallas losing wasn't a complete surprise, but the way they just got completely destroyed sure was. As such, it delayed the Cowboys' clinching party that still seems inevitable. They'll close out the NFC East if they beat the Bucs, and they know they're essentially locked into the 4-seed (which would become official if the Bears win), so a win here will give them the opportunity to rest starters next week.
Vikings (7-6-1) at Lions (5-9): Minnesota-Minnesota survived the New England-Seattle stretch with its playoff spot in tact, and the Vikings maintained that position by putting an absolute beat down on the Dolphins last week. Now they're in a position to lock up a wild card in Week 16. They've even got a shot at avoiding back-to-back games against the Bears if they can leapfrog Seattle for the 5-seed (don't forget Minnesota has that tie, so their loss to the Seahawks doesn't really matter). But first they have to take care of business and clinch a spot, which they can't do this week if they don't beat the Lions.
Giants (5-9) at Colts (8-6): Indianapolis-Nobody wants to face the Indianapolis Colts right now. Don't forget, this is a team that started 1-5 and has now won seven out of eight. And they made a statement against Dallas last week. There's no reason to think they won't make another one against a Giants team that was also shut out by an AFC South opponent last week. Which would set up that winner-take-all matchup next week in Nashville.
Jaguars (4-10) at Dolphins (7-7): Miami-Miami's still alive for the playoffs, even if it's ever so slightly. But, in addition to getting a lot of help, the Dolphins need to win out if they're going to have any chance. At the very least, though, beating Jacksonville in their home finale will guarantee no worse than a .500 record.
Bills (5-9) at Patriots (9-5): New England-Amazingly, New England hasn't clinched the AFC East yet. With two division home games all they've got left, that'll get taken care of soon enough. The Rams' loss last week also means that the Patriots are the only team in the league with an undefeated record at home, which doesn't seem likely to change. That loss to the Steelers last week dropped them to the No. 3 seed in the AFC, though, so if they're going to get their league-mandated Wild Card Weekend bye, they're gonna need some help from either the Eagles or Jaguars.
Packers (5-8-1) at Jets (4-10): Green Bay-For the first time in the Aaron Rodgers Era, the Packers will finish with a losing record in consecutive seasons. Which seems about right for how Green Bay's season has gone. Mercifully there's only two games left. Both of which are winnable. Seeing this matchup of the first two franchises to win the Super Bowl makes me think back to the last time they played at Met Life in 2010. It was while FOX and Optimum were fighting and the Jets wrote Optimum a letter asking to let their fans be able to see the game. That was when the Jets played a max of two games on FOX a year. The fact that the Giants are on FOX virtually every week apparently didn't matter. (And, no, that has nothing to do with anything.)
Texans (10-4) at Eagles (7-7): Houston-The biggest winners of Week 15? Houston. The Texans didn't clinch the AFC South, but they moved into first-round-bye position when the Patriots lost. Now, if they win out, a bye is theirs. They'll face a tough test in Philadelphia, though. The Eagles just have a different energy around them when Nick Foles is at quarterback. Can they carry that energy to a 9-7 finish and a wild card berth? Houston, by the way, locks up a playoff berth if the Chargers win on Saturday night (that game has a bearing on four other teams this week).
Falcons (5-9) at Panthers (6-8): Atlanta-When the schedule came out, Atlanta at Carolina in Week 16 looked like a game that would be awfully significant in the NFC playoff race. Turns out, not so much. All they've got to play for is bragging rights (and .500 is still a possibility for Carolina). The Panthers saw their season unofficially officially come to an end with that strange loss to New Orleans on Monday night. A defensive two-point conversion keeps them in it, then they do nothing on the final drive?! They know they're out of it, too. That's why they shut Cam down for the season.
Rams (11-3) at Cardinals (3-11): Rams-For the first time all season, the Rams look very vulnerable. Or, maybe it's just Sunday nights. Either way, they've essentially lost any shot at the 1-seed. And now they have to worry about holding on to their bye. The good news, though, is that besides not playing on Sunday night, they're facing a woeful Cardinals team this week. And, maybe like last year's Eagles, a little late-season adversity might be just what the Rams need.
Bears (10-4) at 49ers (4-10): Chicago-Chicago clinched the division last week, but is still alive for a bye. Of course, in order to get it, they'll have to win two road games and hope the Rams lose. And the first of those road games is against a 49ers team that's won two straight (both at home). So, this won't be an easy one for the Bears. I do think they'll manage to pull it out, though.
Steelers (8-5-1) at Saints (12-2): Pittsburgh-It wasn't exactly season-saving, but beating the Patriots last week sure made the Steelers breathe a little easier. Now they end their brutal stretch of games by visiting a Saints team that likely isn't leaving the Superdome until the Super Bowl. New Orleans just has to win one of its two remaining games to lock up NFC home field, which I'm sure they'd love to get out of the way this week. The Steelers will know beforehand if they can clinch the AFC North, so, if Baltimore loses, somebody's clinching something in this one.
Chiefs (11-3) at Seahawks (8-6): Kansas City-Suddenly, we're facing the possibility of Kansas City not playing a single playoff home game. All because of a bold call on a two-point conversion. The Chiefs will get some breathing room if the Ravens beat the Chargers, but if not, they'll have even more pressure on them Sunday night. And they have the far harder matchup this weekend. Going to Seattle is never easy. Especially when the Seahawks have a chance to lock up a playoff berth. This might be just the test the Chiefs need, though.
Broncos (6-8) at Raiders (3-11): Oakland-Last year, the Raiders played the Monday night game on Christmas, and it's what got the ball rolling on Jon Gruden's return to coaching. This year they host the Christmas Eve Monday night game for what will likely be the final NFL game in Oakland. It looks like the might have their stadium situation next season figured out (they'll go from sharing a stadium with one Bay Area baseball team to sharing with the other). They'll either be really pumped up for their last game on the East Bay. Or they'll get their butts kicked. I'm not sure which.
Last Week: 9-7
Overall: 141-81-2
Wednesday, December 19, 2018
Coupe du Monde Feminine 2019
I told you I'd get to the Women's World Cup eventually, and today is that day. They did the draw about 10 days ago, and there wasn't really anything too surprising.
Although, because they did the same thing as the men and did the seedings strictly off the FIFA World Rankings, it did lead to some interesting potential pairings. Mainly, Japan and Brazil aren't currently ranked among the top six, while Australia and Canada are. So you had teams like Germany, the United States and England worried that they might end up with one of those two in group play. It actually worked out OK, though, since Brazil ended up with Australia. Japan is with England, but the other two teams in that group are weaker, so that will likely end up not being that big of a deal.
What we saw at the last Women's World Cup, the first one with the expanded field of 24, is that the top-to-bottom quality of women's international soccer still isn't quite the same as it is in the men's game. It has gotten better over the last four years, but those six teams that were in Pot 4, as well as some in Pot 3, are definitely weaker than the rest of the field. And, since four of the six third-place teams advance to the Round of 16, we should see all of the favorites get through, which will make for a great knockout round.
The third place teams add another dimension in that it makes the bracket a little uncertain for the advancing teams. They don't know which groups the third-place teams will come out of. Thus, they likely won't know the matchups ahead of time. They can only base it on projections. And, as Aly Wagner pointed out during the broadcast of the draw ceremony, the USA might be better off finishing second in its group and getting the easier draw that doesn't include France. Think that doesn't make a difference? Just ask Pretty Boy about Portugal's knockout round draw at Euro 2016.
This draw was also easier than last year's men's draw for Russia in one regard. The French women's team is ranked No. 3. So, they would've been seeded anyway. Which means Group A wasn't going to automatically be the "easy" group that the unseeded teams wanted to get drawn into. In fact, Group A looks like it'll be one of the more competitive ones.
Group A: France, South Korea, Norway, Nigeria-Even if the tournament wasn't taking place in France, the French team would be one of the favorites. This draw doesn't change that. Norway was the lowest-ranked team in Pot 2, and South Korea was the highest-ranked in Pot 3, so they actually managed to S-curve the draw without even trying. The fourth team is Nigeria, which must feel relieved to be liberated from the USA-Sweden group. And I actually think they have a decent chance of advancing.
Group B: Germany, China, Spain, South Africa-Unlike their men's team in Russia, we should see the Germans easily get out of group play here. Spain was one of the worst teams at the last Women's World Cup, but has improved immensely and should be able to advance no problem. Same thing with China, which finished second at the Asian Games and third at the Asian Cup. American fans will want to pay attention to that Spain-China matchup. Because second place in Group B plays the winner of Group F in the round of 16.
Group C: Australia, Italy, Brazil, Jamaica-That USA-Sweden thing has taken on such a life of its own that it was easy to miss that it's the same thing with Australia and Brazil. This'll be the fourth straight Women's World Cup in which they'll meet. Same group in 2011 and 2019, knockout round in 2007 and 2015. Italy is back in the Women's World Cup for the first time in 20 years, while Jamaica will make its debut. Great job by them to get the third spot out of CONCACAF, but, like the Panamanian men, they're probably the weakest team in the tournament.
Group D: England, Scotland, Argentina, Japan-Someone has a sense of humor with England meeting Scotland in the first game. With Japan in this group, too, that means we have the second- and third-place finishers from 2015 in the same group (kinda like when Spain and the Netherlands ended up in the same group for the 2014 men's World Cup). That means this group, at least at the top, is the strongest. Argentina's the lowest-ranked team of the four, but I can definitely see them beating Scotland for third place.
Group E: Canada, Cameroon, New Zealand, Netherlands-There were some people who thought Canada shouldn't be seeded, but, as critical as I am of FIFA's rankings, they're No. 5, so yes they should've. And it's not like Canada's group ended up being the easy one, either. That's because No. 7 the Netherlands also ended up in this group. The Dutch went undefeated at Women's Euro 2017, winning their first major title. They'll battle it out for the top spot, which will matter, since second place takes on either the USA or Sweden in the round of 16.
Group F: United States, Thailand, Chile, Sweden-You can't have a Women's World Cup without the USA and Sweden in the same group! They should seriously just save time and make them a package deal from the start. This'll be the fifth straight Women's World Cup in which they'll meet in group play. Although, somehow Nigeria ended up out of this group for a change and the fourth regular group member, North Korea didn't qualify, so it's Thailand and Chile instead. Neither of them should be a problem for the top two, but how much the USA and Sweden beat each of them by could determine which one wins the group. Even though finishing second might result in an easier draw for the knockout round, that shouldn't matter to either the U.S. or Sweden. Not after what happened the last time they played in the Olympic quarterfinals.
As was pointed out during the draw show, the United States has never won a Women's World Cup in Europe (at least the women have won a World Cup game in Europe, unlike the men). They'll still go into the tournament as the favorites, but not overwhelmingly so. Not with a very good French team playing at home and the Olympic champions from Germany also looking strong. I really like England, too, but a lot can happen in six months. June 7 is still a long way away.
Although, because they did the same thing as the men and did the seedings strictly off the FIFA World Rankings, it did lead to some interesting potential pairings. Mainly, Japan and Brazil aren't currently ranked among the top six, while Australia and Canada are. So you had teams like Germany, the United States and England worried that they might end up with one of those two in group play. It actually worked out OK, though, since Brazil ended up with Australia. Japan is with England, but the other two teams in that group are weaker, so that will likely end up not being that big of a deal.
What we saw at the last Women's World Cup, the first one with the expanded field of 24, is that the top-to-bottom quality of women's international soccer still isn't quite the same as it is in the men's game. It has gotten better over the last four years, but those six teams that were in Pot 4, as well as some in Pot 3, are definitely weaker than the rest of the field. And, since four of the six third-place teams advance to the Round of 16, we should see all of the favorites get through, which will make for a great knockout round.
The third place teams add another dimension in that it makes the bracket a little uncertain for the advancing teams. They don't know which groups the third-place teams will come out of. Thus, they likely won't know the matchups ahead of time. They can only base it on projections. And, as Aly Wagner pointed out during the broadcast of the draw ceremony, the USA might be better off finishing second in its group and getting the easier draw that doesn't include France. Think that doesn't make a difference? Just ask Pretty Boy about Portugal's knockout round draw at Euro 2016.
This draw was also easier than last year's men's draw for Russia in one regard. The French women's team is ranked No. 3. So, they would've been seeded anyway. Which means Group A wasn't going to automatically be the "easy" group that the unseeded teams wanted to get drawn into. In fact, Group A looks like it'll be one of the more competitive ones.
Group A: France, South Korea, Norway, Nigeria-Even if the tournament wasn't taking place in France, the French team would be one of the favorites. This draw doesn't change that. Norway was the lowest-ranked team in Pot 2, and South Korea was the highest-ranked in Pot 3, so they actually managed to S-curve the draw without even trying. The fourth team is Nigeria, which must feel relieved to be liberated from the USA-Sweden group. And I actually think they have a decent chance of advancing.
Group B: Germany, China, Spain, South Africa-Unlike their men's team in Russia, we should see the Germans easily get out of group play here. Spain was one of the worst teams at the last Women's World Cup, but has improved immensely and should be able to advance no problem. Same thing with China, which finished second at the Asian Games and third at the Asian Cup. American fans will want to pay attention to that Spain-China matchup. Because second place in Group B plays the winner of Group F in the round of 16.
Group C: Australia, Italy, Brazil, Jamaica-That USA-Sweden thing has taken on such a life of its own that it was easy to miss that it's the same thing with Australia and Brazil. This'll be the fourth straight Women's World Cup in which they'll meet. Same group in 2011 and 2019, knockout round in 2007 and 2015. Italy is back in the Women's World Cup for the first time in 20 years, while Jamaica will make its debut. Great job by them to get the third spot out of CONCACAF, but, like the Panamanian men, they're probably the weakest team in the tournament.
Group D: England, Scotland, Argentina, Japan-Someone has a sense of humor with England meeting Scotland in the first game. With Japan in this group, too, that means we have the second- and third-place finishers from 2015 in the same group (kinda like when Spain and the Netherlands ended up in the same group for the 2014 men's World Cup). That means this group, at least at the top, is the strongest. Argentina's the lowest-ranked team of the four, but I can definitely see them beating Scotland for third place.
Group E: Canada, Cameroon, New Zealand, Netherlands-There were some people who thought Canada shouldn't be seeded, but, as critical as I am of FIFA's rankings, they're No. 5, so yes they should've. And it's not like Canada's group ended up being the easy one, either. That's because No. 7 the Netherlands also ended up in this group. The Dutch went undefeated at Women's Euro 2017, winning their first major title. They'll battle it out for the top spot, which will matter, since second place takes on either the USA or Sweden in the round of 16.
Group F: United States, Thailand, Chile, Sweden-You can't have a Women's World Cup without the USA and Sweden in the same group! They should seriously just save time and make them a package deal from the start. This'll be the fifth straight Women's World Cup in which they'll meet in group play. Although, somehow Nigeria ended up out of this group for a change and the fourth regular group member, North Korea didn't qualify, so it's Thailand and Chile instead. Neither of them should be a problem for the top two, but how much the USA and Sweden beat each of them by could determine which one wins the group. Even though finishing second might result in an easier draw for the knockout round, that shouldn't matter to either the U.S. or Sweden. Not after what happened the last time they played in the Olympic quarterfinals.
As was pointed out during the draw show, the United States has never won a Women's World Cup in Europe (at least the women have won a World Cup game in Europe, unlike the men). They'll still go into the tournament as the favorites, but not overwhelmingly so. Not with a very good French team playing at home and the Olympic champions from Germany also looking strong. I really like England, too, but a lot can happen in six months. June 7 is still a long way away.
Saturday, December 15, 2018
Week 15, NFL 2018
Thursday Night Football concluded its first season on FOX with its highest-rated game in nearly two years. Ratings were up across the board from 2017, which had to make both FOX and the NFL happy. Of course, it helps that this year's Thursday night games were significantly better than the Thursday night schedules have been in the past.
Speaking of the Thursday night games, the Chargers' bold decision to go for the win sure changed things, didn't it? The Chiefs went from locking up home field to now potentially not even having a home game. And the Patriots are suddenly in contention for the AFC's No. 1 seed (they get it if all three of them finish 12-4). This despite last week's results where every AFC playoff team except for the two in the West lost.
And that was just the start of Week 15. With so many teams involved for the other AFC wild card and the second NFC wild card, virtually every game is a big one. Then there are the teams who can clinch divisions and are battling for playoff positioning. Out of the 15 remaining games, 10 of them have at least some playoff relevance.
Thursday Night: Kansas City (Loss)
Texans (9-4) at Jets (4-9): Houston-Houston missed its chance to clinch the AFC South last week, yet stayed at No. 3 in the AFC playoff standings. The Texans are still very much alive for a first-round bye, but first they have to take care of the division. It's not entirely in their hands anymore, and I'm sure they'll be paying attention to the other game being played at Met Life Stadium this weekend (why were they both away last week, and both home this week?!). They'll do their part, then see how things play out on Sunday, after which they could be AFC South champions.
Browns (5-7-1) at Broncos (6-7): Denver-When the season started, did anybody really think the Cleveland Browns would be featured in a Saturday night game a week before Christmas? Denver, meanwhile, really screwed itself with that loss to San Francisco last week. I've been saying for a while that the Broncos are that one team no one wants to face in the playoffs. Now I don't think any of them are going to have to worry about it. Because Denver's not leapfrogging four teams (not to mention the fact that they play the Chargers in Week 17). They will get to .500, though.
Cardinals (3-10) at Falcons (4-9): Atlanta-This is the Falcons' last home game of the year, so they're gonna have plenty of time to get Mercedes-Benz Stadium ready for the Super Bowl (they're, of course, holding the Peach Bowl there first). Atlanta United just wrapped up the MLS Cup at home, so back-to-back major professional champions will be crowned in the stadium. As you can tell, this is one of the five irrelevant games. I forget where I saw it, but this line summed up the Falcons perfectly: "They've got a great offense, but their defense is so bad that it can't stay off the field." Pretty much. They are better than the Cardinals, though.
Lions (5-8) at Bills (4-9): Detroit-Another one of the irrelevant games pits Detroit against Buffalo. The Bills love these December home games against teams not used to the wintry Buffalo weather. Detroit is only four hours away across the lake (or Southern Ontario), but the Lions play in a dome, so they count as one of those teams. I like the Lions in this game, though. I don't really know why. Just call it a hunch.
Packers (5-7-1) at Bears (9-4): Chicago-Back in Week 1, when Aaron Rodgers led one of his signature comebacks, it looked like this season would be business as usual in the NFC North. As it turns out, not so much. Although, the Packers can have the joy of preventing the Bears from clinching the division at home. Chicago is actually still technically alive for a first-round bye after that outstanding defensive performance against the Rams last week. A win here wraps up their first division title since 2010 and guarantees Green Bay's first back-to-back losing seasons since 1990-91 (some guy named Favre showed up in '92).
Raiders (3-10) at Bengals (5-8): Cincinnati-It sure was an eventful week for the Raiders, huh? First, they beat the Steelers. Then they get sued by the City of Oakland for their "illegal" move to Las Vegas. Then they withdraw their lease offer for 2019, meaning we have no idea where they'll play next season. Then Martavis Bryant gets suspended indefinitely. With what appears to be their final game in Oakland looming next week, the Raiders head to Cincinnati in what could be Marvin Lewis' final home game as Bengals coach (how many times before have I said that?). He'll get one more for the road. Too much turmoil in Raider Nation this week.
Cowboys (8-5) at Colts (7-6): Dallas-Remember when the Cowboys were 3-5 and everyone thought Jason Garrett might get fired? Yeah, I'd say their season has changed a bit. They were two games back in the NFC East after that Monday night loss to the Titans. Now they have a two-game lead and can wrap up the division title with two weeks left! They've been winning in different ways, too, which bodes well for them in the playoffs. First things first, they'll beat the Colts and clinch the division.
Dolphins (7-6) at Vikings (6-6-1): Minnesota-Not surprisingly, Minnesota went 0-2 on that New England-to-Seattle trek. What's amazing is that they maintained their playoff spot, with a favorable remaining schedule. Miami, meanwhile, Wow! That finish last Sunday was incredible. And suddenly the Dolphins are back in the AFC playoff discussion. One of their chances will take a serious hit with a loss here, though. Especially since the battle for those 6-seeds is so crowded.
Titans (7-6) at Giants (5-8): Giants-Don't look now, but the New York FOOTBALL Giants once again resemble a professional FOOTBALL team. They've won four out of five and it could easily be five in a row. There's no looking past them anymore. And you know the Titans won't be. After two straight wins, Tennessee is back in the AFC wild card hunt and one of the four teams in that 7-6 tie. It's still doable for them to get back to the postseason, too, with home games against Washington and Indianapolis left. Their final road game will be a tough one, though, and a Giants win will have the opposite effect and virtually eliminate the Titans.
Redskins (6-7) at Jaguars (4-9): Washington-Well, that Mark Sanchez thing lasted long. He was the Redskins' starter for all of a half before being replaced by Josh Johnson last week. Now it's Johnson who'll make the start as Washington heads to Jacksonville. If you're the Redskins, you've got to be tortured by the what ifs. Four losses and four quarterbacks later, all they can do is wonder. Meanwhile, the Jaguars have lost eight of their last nine since starting 3-1. They've got to be reminiscing about 2017 and remembering it fondly. The good news is one of them has to not lose.
Buccaneers (5-8) at Ravens (7-6): Baltimore-Despite losing to Kansas City last week, the Ravens own that four-way tiebreaker among the AFC's 7-6 teams, so they're still holding on to that No. 6 seed. And, because the Steelers have suddenly forgotten how to play football, the AFC North is suddenly back in the picture. They visit the Chargers next week, so they know the importance of getting this one. Then they'll watch what happens in Pittsburgh to see if they're in first place at the end of the day.
Seahawks (8-5) at 49ers (3-10): Seattle-After starting 0-2, the Seahawks are now in a position to wrap up a wild card with two games to spare. They'll get a chance to do it against the rival 49ers, a team they scored 43 points on two weeks ago. Why would this one be any different? Especially with the way the Seahawks have been playing?
Patriots (9-4) at Steelers (7-5-1): Pittsburgh-We all remember what happened when these two met in Pittsburgh in Week 15 a year ago. The Steelers sure do. (Although, we should all be thankful to that game for getting the NFL to finally change the ridiculous old interpretation of what constitutes a "catch.") Last season's game was for the No. 1 seed in the AFC, and for a while it looked like this year's might be for a bye. That was before the Steelers' free fall. Now it doesn't even matter if they win. Because they're not going to go ahead of the Patriots anyway. They can at least get the satisfaction of beating them, though. And stay ahead of the Ravens. If they don't, they're in danger of missing out altogether. Because, don't forget, they play the Saints next week.
Eagles (6-7) at Rams (11-2): Rams-Last year's Eagles-Rams game in LA was a classic. It's also the game where Carson Wentz got hurt and everyone thought Philly's season was over. Well, we all saw how that worked out. This year it's the Rams who come into this matchup as the Super Bowl contenders. They need their second straight Sunday night to go better than last week's, though. The Bears' defense completely shut them down, and now they need to rely on either the Panthers or Steelers to help them out if they want to get the 1-seed back from the Saints. The loss to the Bears also means that they have to wait until next week to clinch their bye, too, assuming they bounce back in this one.
Saints (11-2) at Panthers (6-7): New Orleans-Why are these two playing two of their final three games against each other? Anyway, for a while, it looked like these late-season head-to-heads would determine the NFC South champion. Instead, the Saints ran away with the division as the Panthers took themselves out of even the wild card race. Of course, they're only a half-game behind Minnesota, so if they can get one of these two against the Saints, the playoffs are still possible. And this seems like the more winnable one. That doesn't mean they will win, though.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 11-5
Overall: 132-75-2
Speaking of the Thursday night games, the Chargers' bold decision to go for the win sure changed things, didn't it? The Chiefs went from locking up home field to now potentially not even having a home game. And the Patriots are suddenly in contention for the AFC's No. 1 seed (they get it if all three of them finish 12-4). This despite last week's results where every AFC playoff team except for the two in the West lost.
And that was just the start of Week 15. With so many teams involved for the other AFC wild card and the second NFC wild card, virtually every game is a big one. Then there are the teams who can clinch divisions and are battling for playoff positioning. Out of the 15 remaining games, 10 of them have at least some playoff relevance.
Thursday Night: Kansas City (Loss)
Texans (9-4) at Jets (4-9): Houston-Houston missed its chance to clinch the AFC South last week, yet stayed at No. 3 in the AFC playoff standings. The Texans are still very much alive for a first-round bye, but first they have to take care of the division. It's not entirely in their hands anymore, and I'm sure they'll be paying attention to the other game being played at Met Life Stadium this weekend (why were they both away last week, and both home this week?!). They'll do their part, then see how things play out on Sunday, after which they could be AFC South champions.
Browns (5-7-1) at Broncos (6-7): Denver-When the season started, did anybody really think the Cleveland Browns would be featured in a Saturday night game a week before Christmas? Denver, meanwhile, really screwed itself with that loss to San Francisco last week. I've been saying for a while that the Broncos are that one team no one wants to face in the playoffs. Now I don't think any of them are going to have to worry about it. Because Denver's not leapfrogging four teams (not to mention the fact that they play the Chargers in Week 17). They will get to .500, though.
Cardinals (3-10) at Falcons (4-9): Atlanta-This is the Falcons' last home game of the year, so they're gonna have plenty of time to get Mercedes-Benz Stadium ready for the Super Bowl (they're, of course, holding the Peach Bowl there first). Atlanta United just wrapped up the MLS Cup at home, so back-to-back major professional champions will be crowned in the stadium. As you can tell, this is one of the five irrelevant games. I forget where I saw it, but this line summed up the Falcons perfectly: "They've got a great offense, but their defense is so bad that it can't stay off the field." Pretty much. They are better than the Cardinals, though.
Lions (5-8) at Bills (4-9): Detroit-Another one of the irrelevant games pits Detroit against Buffalo. The Bills love these December home games against teams not used to the wintry Buffalo weather. Detroit is only four hours away across the lake (or Southern Ontario), but the Lions play in a dome, so they count as one of those teams. I like the Lions in this game, though. I don't really know why. Just call it a hunch.
Packers (5-7-1) at Bears (9-4): Chicago-Back in Week 1, when Aaron Rodgers led one of his signature comebacks, it looked like this season would be business as usual in the NFC North. As it turns out, not so much. Although, the Packers can have the joy of preventing the Bears from clinching the division at home. Chicago is actually still technically alive for a first-round bye after that outstanding defensive performance against the Rams last week. A win here wraps up their first division title since 2010 and guarantees Green Bay's first back-to-back losing seasons since 1990-91 (some guy named Favre showed up in '92).
Raiders (3-10) at Bengals (5-8): Cincinnati-It sure was an eventful week for the Raiders, huh? First, they beat the Steelers. Then they get sued by the City of Oakland for their "illegal" move to Las Vegas. Then they withdraw their lease offer for 2019, meaning we have no idea where they'll play next season. Then Martavis Bryant gets suspended indefinitely. With what appears to be their final game in Oakland looming next week, the Raiders head to Cincinnati in what could be Marvin Lewis' final home game as Bengals coach (how many times before have I said that?). He'll get one more for the road. Too much turmoil in Raider Nation this week.
Cowboys (8-5) at Colts (7-6): Dallas-Remember when the Cowboys were 3-5 and everyone thought Jason Garrett might get fired? Yeah, I'd say their season has changed a bit. They were two games back in the NFC East after that Monday night loss to the Titans. Now they have a two-game lead and can wrap up the division title with two weeks left! They've been winning in different ways, too, which bodes well for them in the playoffs. First things first, they'll beat the Colts and clinch the division.
Dolphins (7-6) at Vikings (6-6-1): Minnesota-Not surprisingly, Minnesota went 0-2 on that New England-to-Seattle trek. What's amazing is that they maintained their playoff spot, with a favorable remaining schedule. Miami, meanwhile, Wow! That finish last Sunday was incredible. And suddenly the Dolphins are back in the AFC playoff discussion. One of their chances will take a serious hit with a loss here, though. Especially since the battle for those 6-seeds is so crowded.
Titans (7-6) at Giants (5-8): Giants-Don't look now, but the New York FOOTBALL Giants once again resemble a professional FOOTBALL team. They've won four out of five and it could easily be five in a row. There's no looking past them anymore. And you know the Titans won't be. After two straight wins, Tennessee is back in the AFC wild card hunt and one of the four teams in that 7-6 tie. It's still doable for them to get back to the postseason, too, with home games against Washington and Indianapolis left. Their final road game will be a tough one, though, and a Giants win will have the opposite effect and virtually eliminate the Titans.
Redskins (6-7) at Jaguars (4-9): Washington-Well, that Mark Sanchez thing lasted long. He was the Redskins' starter for all of a half before being replaced by Josh Johnson last week. Now it's Johnson who'll make the start as Washington heads to Jacksonville. If you're the Redskins, you've got to be tortured by the what ifs. Four losses and four quarterbacks later, all they can do is wonder. Meanwhile, the Jaguars have lost eight of their last nine since starting 3-1. They've got to be reminiscing about 2017 and remembering it fondly. The good news is one of them has to not lose.
Buccaneers (5-8) at Ravens (7-6): Baltimore-Despite losing to Kansas City last week, the Ravens own that four-way tiebreaker among the AFC's 7-6 teams, so they're still holding on to that No. 6 seed. And, because the Steelers have suddenly forgotten how to play football, the AFC North is suddenly back in the picture. They visit the Chargers next week, so they know the importance of getting this one. Then they'll watch what happens in Pittsburgh to see if they're in first place at the end of the day.
Seahawks (8-5) at 49ers (3-10): Seattle-After starting 0-2, the Seahawks are now in a position to wrap up a wild card with two games to spare. They'll get a chance to do it against the rival 49ers, a team they scored 43 points on two weeks ago. Why would this one be any different? Especially with the way the Seahawks have been playing?
Patriots (9-4) at Steelers (7-5-1): Pittsburgh-We all remember what happened when these two met in Pittsburgh in Week 15 a year ago. The Steelers sure do. (Although, we should all be thankful to that game for getting the NFL to finally change the ridiculous old interpretation of what constitutes a "catch.") Last season's game was for the No. 1 seed in the AFC, and for a while it looked like this year's might be for a bye. That was before the Steelers' free fall. Now it doesn't even matter if they win. Because they're not going to go ahead of the Patriots anyway. They can at least get the satisfaction of beating them, though. And stay ahead of the Ravens. If they don't, they're in danger of missing out altogether. Because, don't forget, they play the Saints next week.
Eagles (6-7) at Rams (11-2): Rams-Last year's Eagles-Rams game in LA was a classic. It's also the game where Carson Wentz got hurt and everyone thought Philly's season was over. Well, we all saw how that worked out. This year it's the Rams who come into this matchup as the Super Bowl contenders. They need their second straight Sunday night to go better than last week's, though. The Bears' defense completely shut them down, and now they need to rely on either the Panthers or Steelers to help them out if they want to get the 1-seed back from the Saints. The loss to the Bears also means that they have to wait until next week to clinch their bye, too, assuming they bounce back in this one.
Saints (11-2) at Panthers (6-7): New Orleans-Why are these two playing two of their final three games against each other? Anyway, for a while, it looked like these late-season head-to-heads would determine the NFC South champion. Instead, the Saints ran away with the division as the Panthers took themselves out of even the wild card race. Of course, they're only a half-game behind Minnesota, so if they can get one of these two against the Saints, the playoffs are still possible. And this seems like the more winnable one. That doesn't mean they will win, though.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 11-5
Overall: 132-75-2
Friday, December 14, 2018
A Not-So-Shocking Turn
Women's World Cup, I'll get to you. I promise. But first, another piece of disturbing news that really shouldn't be so shocking in the saga known as the Larry Nassar scandal. It turns out, the USOC did know what was going on and did nothing about it.
According to the 233-page Ropes & Gray report, then-USA Gymnastics CEO Steve Penny informed USOC officials Scott Blackmun and Alan Ashley of the allegations against Nassar in July 2015--more than a year before the first media reports surfaced in September 2016. They took no action. Instead, their "response" was to keep that information to themselves. They didn't even share it with the rest of the USOC's Board of Directors. And, when Penny sent them an email telling them Nassar had resigned in September 2015, they all acted like they had no idea why.
Obviously the timing motivated their inaction, at least in part. It was right in the heart of preparations for the Rio Olympics, where the U.S. continued its dominance, winning its second straight team gold medal while Simone Biles became one of the Darlings of the Games. Biles' teammate Aly Raisman and the many other Nassar survivors claimed that the USOC was "putting medals above the athletes it's sworn to protect." After reading the report, it's hard to disagree with them.
It sure looks like the USOC wanted more than anything else to make sure nothing screwed up that expected medal haul in women's gymnastics at the Rio Games. While we'll never know whether or not that was the motivation, it sure looks that way. Ashley was fired almost immediately after the report made it clear he was involved in the cover-up. Blackmun would've been also had he not already resigned in February.
The USOC's main argument throughout this entire sorry ordeal has been that they don't get involved in the day-to-day operations of the different national governing bodies. I get that. The USOC is the overseer of both the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic teams, as well as the governing bodies for 47 different sports. The national governing bodies, by definition, are responsible for their own sport. However, the USOC is responsible for making sure those governing bodies conduct themselves within certain guidelines (one of which is the safety of their athletes). And in that area, the USOC failed. Miserably.
As crazy as it sounds, it almost would've been better if the USOC had remained blissfully unaware of what was going on at USA Gymnastics. Instead, you had two high-ranking USOC officals involved in the cover-up for more than a year.
After the Ropes & Gray report was released, a woman named Lindsay Gibbs published a piece on ThinkProgress.org entitled "The time has come for Congress to dismantle the USOC." I can see why she's angry and blames the organization. She also made some valid points about how the USOC is broken in certain areas. However, her solution isn't a viable one.
For starters, the USOC is a private organization completely independent of the government. The United States is one of the few countries in the world where the Olympic Committee doesn't receive government funding. So, Congress, in addition to having other things to do, has absolutely no authority over the USOC.
More importantly, though, decertifying the USOC would only serve to hurt the athletes. In all 47 sports. None of whom had anything to do with this. The USOC provides funding, resources, training facilities, even places to live, to thousands of athletes. What happens to them if there's no USOC? You also need to have a USOC in order to, you know, have a U.S. Olympic Team!
Did the USOC fail? Absolutely. To the same extent as USA Gymnastics? No. So the USOC doesn't bear the same level of responsibility. Especially since we don't know who at the USOC knew what beyond Scott Blackmun and Alan Ashley. In fact, Blackmun went out of his way to make sure no else knew. They're the ones who needed to be held accountable, which they were.
Will steps be taken in the future to prevent something like this from ever happening again? Of course. Especially now that the USOC is under increased scrutiny after enabling Larry Nassar through its inaction. As Susanne Lyons, a USOC board member who served as acting CEO earlier this year noted, "Transparency is important." And transparency is absolutely the key. Because the USOC's lack of action was because there was no transparency. Blackmun and Ashley effectively prevented the USOC from doing anything by staying quiet, so it's difficult to blame the entire organization for what happened.
None of the revelations in the Ropes & Gray report are particularly earth-shattering. A lot of it was simply rehashing stuff we already knew. Although, the one conclusion that was made seemed both accurate and fair. The USOC was reluctant to act because it had given the different national federations a good amount of autonomy when it came to running their individual organizations. Clearly this was the wrong decision.
There's a lot of blame to go around for Larry Nassar being allowed to do what he did and how he was able to do it for so long. The USOC deserves some of that blame. But not all of it. Not even close. The Ropes & Gray report confirms that, while also acknowledging that the organization's priorities might've been a little out of order.
Winning medals is important, yes. But it's not the only thing that matters. And those medals shouldn't come at any cost. Especially not when athletes' safety is put at risk. The USOC forgot that somewhere along the line. Now the important thing is making sure the proper steps are taken to ensure that they never forget that again.
According to the 233-page Ropes & Gray report, then-USA Gymnastics CEO Steve Penny informed USOC officials Scott Blackmun and Alan Ashley of the allegations against Nassar in July 2015--more than a year before the first media reports surfaced in September 2016. They took no action. Instead, their "response" was to keep that information to themselves. They didn't even share it with the rest of the USOC's Board of Directors. And, when Penny sent them an email telling them Nassar had resigned in September 2015, they all acted like they had no idea why.
Obviously the timing motivated their inaction, at least in part. It was right in the heart of preparations for the Rio Olympics, where the U.S. continued its dominance, winning its second straight team gold medal while Simone Biles became one of the Darlings of the Games. Biles' teammate Aly Raisman and the many other Nassar survivors claimed that the USOC was "putting medals above the athletes it's sworn to protect." After reading the report, it's hard to disagree with them.
It sure looks like the USOC wanted more than anything else to make sure nothing screwed up that expected medal haul in women's gymnastics at the Rio Games. While we'll never know whether or not that was the motivation, it sure looks that way. Ashley was fired almost immediately after the report made it clear he was involved in the cover-up. Blackmun would've been also had he not already resigned in February.
The USOC's main argument throughout this entire sorry ordeal has been that they don't get involved in the day-to-day operations of the different national governing bodies. I get that. The USOC is the overseer of both the U.S. Olympic and Paralympic teams, as well as the governing bodies for 47 different sports. The national governing bodies, by definition, are responsible for their own sport. However, the USOC is responsible for making sure those governing bodies conduct themselves within certain guidelines (one of which is the safety of their athletes). And in that area, the USOC failed. Miserably.
As crazy as it sounds, it almost would've been better if the USOC had remained blissfully unaware of what was going on at USA Gymnastics. Instead, you had two high-ranking USOC officals involved in the cover-up for more than a year.
After the Ropes & Gray report was released, a woman named Lindsay Gibbs published a piece on ThinkProgress.org entitled "The time has come for Congress to dismantle the USOC." I can see why she's angry and blames the organization. She also made some valid points about how the USOC is broken in certain areas. However, her solution isn't a viable one.
For starters, the USOC is a private organization completely independent of the government. The United States is one of the few countries in the world where the Olympic Committee doesn't receive government funding. So, Congress, in addition to having other things to do, has absolutely no authority over the USOC.
More importantly, though, decertifying the USOC would only serve to hurt the athletes. In all 47 sports. None of whom had anything to do with this. The USOC provides funding, resources, training facilities, even places to live, to thousands of athletes. What happens to them if there's no USOC? You also need to have a USOC in order to, you know, have a U.S. Olympic Team!
Did the USOC fail? Absolutely. To the same extent as USA Gymnastics? No. So the USOC doesn't bear the same level of responsibility. Especially since we don't know who at the USOC knew what beyond Scott Blackmun and Alan Ashley. In fact, Blackmun went out of his way to make sure no else knew. They're the ones who needed to be held accountable, which they were.
Will steps be taken in the future to prevent something like this from ever happening again? Of course. Especially now that the USOC is under increased scrutiny after enabling Larry Nassar through its inaction. As Susanne Lyons, a USOC board member who served as acting CEO earlier this year noted, "Transparency is important." And transparency is absolutely the key. Because the USOC's lack of action was because there was no transparency. Blackmun and Ashley effectively prevented the USOC from doing anything by staying quiet, so it's difficult to blame the entire organization for what happened.
None of the revelations in the Ropes & Gray report are particularly earth-shattering. A lot of it was simply rehashing stuff we already knew. Although, the one conclusion that was made seemed both accurate and fair. The USOC was reluctant to act because it had given the different national federations a good amount of autonomy when it came to running their individual organizations. Clearly this was the wrong decision.
There's a lot of blame to go around for Larry Nassar being allowed to do what he did and how he was able to do it for so long. The USOC deserves some of that blame. But not all of it. Not even close. The Ropes & Gray report confirms that, while also acknowledging that the organization's priorities might've been a little out of order.
Winning medals is important, yes. But it's not the only thing that matters. And those medals shouldn't come at any cost. Especially not when athletes' safety is put at risk. The USOC forgot that somewhere along the line. Now the important thing is making sure the proper steps are taken to ensure that they never forget that again.
Tuesday, December 11, 2018
Harold Baines?!
I was originally planning on doing a Women's World Cup breakdown today. But I'm putting that off until my next post. Because it's just too difficult to ignore yesterday's shocking Baseball Hall of Fame election. The election in which Harold Baines, who never got more than six percent from the writers, was voted into Cooperstown.
To say his election was shocking is an understatement. In fact, there are a whole slew of adjectives that could be used to be describe the surprising news. "Controversial" is another popular one. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. There's not a single person (except for maybe the 16 in the room) who expected to hear Harold Baines' name when they made the announcement.
At best, Baines has been viewed as a borderline candidate ever since he retired. MLB Network's Brian Kenny has a show where he makes a Cooperstown Case for players he thinks are deserving and being overlooked. He's never done an episode on Harold Baines. Because very few people gave Baines any chance of ever being elected. Especially when there are so many players who you would consider Hall of Famers before him.
This certainly helps the candidacy of someone like Fred McGriff, another borderline candidate who many feel has a stronger resume than Baines. And, if Harold Baines can eventually get elected, does that mean players like Bernie Williams and Andruw Jones and Gary Sheffield will, too? Frankly, I don't think any of them are Hall of Famers. But, frankly, I don't think Harold Baines is, either.
The Hall of Fame honors the top one percent of all those who've ever played the game. It's the elite of the elite. Is Harold Baines part of that one percent? Sadly, no. Or, to put it a different way...would the Hall of Fame feel incomplete without him there? It certainly would not.
Harold Baines was a very good player for a long time. But he was never among the very best players. Yes, he was a consistent hitter who lasted 22 years. But the Hall of Fame is not a place for the consistently good. It's a place for the consistently great.
And, sorry, but I have an issue with a Hall of Fame that includes Harold Baines but not the far superior Dale Murphy (or even Steve Garvey, a player I strongly believe belongs in Cooperstown). Or, for that matter, a Hall of Fame that includes Harold Baines and not Marvin Miller, the man who literally changed the game in the 70s.
Let's not forget, too, that while Ron Blomberg will forever be the first DH, Baines is perhaps the very first full-time DH. He started off as an outfielder, but his knees became so bad so early in his career that he was limited to strictly hitting for the majority of his career. I'm not saying that to discredit DH as a position. I think you know me well enough to know that's not the case at all. However, I do think that DHing is precisely why Baines was able to play for 22 years. And playing for 22 years helped Baines accumulate numbers that included 2866 hits and 384 home runs.
Those numbers are literally his ONLY case for the Hall of Fame. And I'm sure the argument was made that he would've reached 3000 hits if not for the 1981 and 1994 strikes. Although, when ranking him on the list of all-time DH's, he's no higher than a distant third behind Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz. Fourth if you count Frank Thomas as a DH instead of a first baseman.
Well, that's not completely true. Baines had some friends on the committee, which undoubtedly helped him get in. There were 16 committee members. That group included Jerry Reinsdorf, the White Sox owner who drafted him No. 1 overall; Tony La Russa, his first manager; and Pat Gillick, the Orioles GM who traded for him during Baltimore's playoff run in 1997. That's three of the 12 votes he needed. And there's no doubt they were able to influence nine others.
Cronyism has, unfortunately, always been a part of the Veterans' Committee. That's how Bill Mazeroski got in. Although, Mazeroski at least had his signature moment with his walk-off home run against the Yankees in Game 7 of the 1960 World Series. Baines, however, has no such signature moment. His biggest claim to fame is being traded at the deadline a lot because good American League teams wanted his bat down the stretch. Sorry, that's not enough to make a guy a Hall of Famer in my book.
His election sets a bad precedent, too. Because if Harold Baines is in the Hall of Fame, how can you argue that Paul O'Neill or Jim Edmonds or even Kenny Lofton shouldn't be? I'd even go so far as to ask how you can make a case for him over Joe Carter, Will Clark or Albert Belle, the three other hitters who were on the same Today's Game Era ballot on which Baines was voted in.
Which isn't to say any of those players is a Hall of Famer. There's a reason why none of them are. They're all borderline candidates. Yet I'd rank every one of them ahead of Harold Baines. And Baines' election lowers the standard by which those players are measured, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Lee Smith was also elected to the Hall of Fame on Sunday night. Unanimously. His election brings no such controversy. Once he moved from the writers' vote to the Veterans' Committee, it seemed inevitable that Smith would eventually get in. But Harold Baines joining him in Cooperstown. That was definitely a surprise. And not necessarily a good one. (Although, if Edgar Martinez gets voted in by the writers, it could be fun to see the purists' heads explode when the Hall of Fame class consists of two closers and two DHs.)
To say his election was shocking is an understatement. In fact, there are a whole slew of adjectives that could be used to be describe the surprising news. "Controversial" is another popular one. And I'm not the only one who thinks so. There's not a single person (except for maybe the 16 in the room) who expected to hear Harold Baines' name when they made the announcement.
At best, Baines has been viewed as a borderline candidate ever since he retired. MLB Network's Brian Kenny has a show where he makes a Cooperstown Case for players he thinks are deserving and being overlooked. He's never done an episode on Harold Baines. Because very few people gave Baines any chance of ever being elected. Especially when there are so many players who you would consider Hall of Famers before him.
This certainly helps the candidacy of someone like Fred McGriff, another borderline candidate who many feel has a stronger resume than Baines. And, if Harold Baines can eventually get elected, does that mean players like Bernie Williams and Andruw Jones and Gary Sheffield will, too? Frankly, I don't think any of them are Hall of Famers. But, frankly, I don't think Harold Baines is, either.
The Hall of Fame honors the top one percent of all those who've ever played the game. It's the elite of the elite. Is Harold Baines part of that one percent? Sadly, no. Or, to put it a different way...would the Hall of Fame feel incomplete without him there? It certainly would not.
Harold Baines was a very good player for a long time. But he was never among the very best players. Yes, he was a consistent hitter who lasted 22 years. But the Hall of Fame is not a place for the consistently good. It's a place for the consistently great.
And, sorry, but I have an issue with a Hall of Fame that includes Harold Baines but not the far superior Dale Murphy (or even Steve Garvey, a player I strongly believe belongs in Cooperstown). Or, for that matter, a Hall of Fame that includes Harold Baines and not Marvin Miller, the man who literally changed the game in the 70s.
Let's not forget, too, that while Ron Blomberg will forever be the first DH, Baines is perhaps the very first full-time DH. He started off as an outfielder, but his knees became so bad so early in his career that he was limited to strictly hitting for the majority of his career. I'm not saying that to discredit DH as a position. I think you know me well enough to know that's not the case at all. However, I do think that DHing is precisely why Baines was able to play for 22 years. And playing for 22 years helped Baines accumulate numbers that included 2866 hits and 384 home runs.
Those numbers are literally his ONLY case for the Hall of Fame. And I'm sure the argument was made that he would've reached 3000 hits if not for the 1981 and 1994 strikes. Although, when ranking him on the list of all-time DH's, he's no higher than a distant third behind Edgar Martinez and David Ortiz. Fourth if you count Frank Thomas as a DH instead of a first baseman.
Well, that's not completely true. Baines had some friends on the committee, which undoubtedly helped him get in. There were 16 committee members. That group included Jerry Reinsdorf, the White Sox owner who drafted him No. 1 overall; Tony La Russa, his first manager; and Pat Gillick, the Orioles GM who traded for him during Baltimore's playoff run in 1997. That's three of the 12 votes he needed. And there's no doubt they were able to influence nine others.
Cronyism has, unfortunately, always been a part of the Veterans' Committee. That's how Bill Mazeroski got in. Although, Mazeroski at least had his signature moment with his walk-off home run against the Yankees in Game 7 of the 1960 World Series. Baines, however, has no such signature moment. His biggest claim to fame is being traded at the deadline a lot because good American League teams wanted his bat down the stretch. Sorry, that's not enough to make a guy a Hall of Famer in my book.
His election sets a bad precedent, too. Because if Harold Baines is in the Hall of Fame, how can you argue that Paul O'Neill or Jim Edmonds or even Kenny Lofton shouldn't be? I'd even go so far as to ask how you can make a case for him over Joe Carter, Will Clark or Albert Belle, the three other hitters who were on the same Today's Game Era ballot on which Baines was voted in.
Which isn't to say any of those players is a Hall of Famer. There's a reason why none of them are. They're all borderline candidates. Yet I'd rank every one of them ahead of Harold Baines. And Baines' election lowers the standard by which those players are measured, which isn't necessarily a bad thing.
Lee Smith was also elected to the Hall of Fame on Sunday night. Unanimously. His election brings no such controversy. Once he moved from the writers' vote to the Veterans' Committee, it seemed inevitable that Smith would eventually get in. But Harold Baines joining him in Cooperstown. That was definitely a surprise. And not necessarily a good one. (Although, if Edgar Martinez gets voted in by the writers, it could be fun to see the purists' heads explode when the Hall of Fame class consists of two closers and two DHs.)
Sunday, December 9, 2018
Week 14, NFL 2018
You know we're getting deep into the NFL season when the playoff clinching scenarios start appearing weekly. One of this week's scenarios has already been taken out of the equation with the Titans' win on Thursday night, which pushes back the Texans' chance to clinch the AFC South by a week (even though I think Houston is already guaranteed the tiebreaker over Tennessee).
That would've accounted for half the divisions with still nearly a month left! At least the remaining divisions have still have the potential to give us at least some suspense down the stretch.
Jets (3-9) at Bills (4-8): Buffalo-In Week 10, the Bills absolutely dominated the Jets in every way at Met Life Stadium. Now for the rematch in Buffalo, where the Bills' only losses this season have come against the playoff-bound Chargers, Patriots and Bears. Both teams are out of it, but the Bills at least still care. The Jets did almost beat the Titans last week, but they've really been just mailing it in for a while now.
Panthers (6-6) at Browns (4-7-1): Cleveland-The Panthers were sitting pretty for a wild card berth, and even had a decent shot at winning the NFC South. That was five weeks ago when they were 6-2. Since then, they've gone 0-4 and find themselves on the outside looking in with both of their games against the Saints remaining. Cleveland, meanwhile, has been playing some inspired football. The Browns see this one as winnable, and for good reason. I'm calling the upset here.
Falcons (4-8) at Packers (4-7-1): Atlanta-Both of these teams are in a free fall. Green Bay's season officially went down the tubes when they lost to Arizona last week, a loss that cost Mike McCarthy his job (which he was going to lose anyway). Now the Packers need to win out just to avoid back-to-back sub-.500 seasons. The Falcons haven't been much better. In fact, they've lost four in a row. Which means something's gotta give.
Ravens (7-5) at Chiefs (10-2): Kansas City-Kansas City clinches a playoff spot with a win, which would set them up to clinch the division on Thursday night against the Chargers. The Ravens beat Tennessee, so they'll hold onto their wild card even with a loss. The Chiefs got a game from the Raiders last week, but found a way to pull it out and stay in the AFC driver's seat. Back at home for the first time in a month, this week could go a long way in determining whether or not that Sunday night game in Seattle right before Christmas is the only time they leave Kansas City between now and the Super Bowl.
Patriots (9-3) at Dolphins (6-6): New England-When these two met in Week 4, Miami was undefeated and had a two-game lead in the division. Ten weeks later, New England has made up five games on the Dolphins and is now on the brink of its league-mandated division title. The Patriots are also inching ever closer to their league-mandated first-round bye. They'll wrap up their 10th straight AFC East title, and the 17th of the Bradicheck Era.
Saints (10-2) at Buccaneers (5-7): New Orleans-It seems kind of hard to believe now, but Tampa Bay beat New Orleans in the season opener. That, of course, marked the last time the Saints lost until last Thursday in Dallas. I had a feeling the Saints would have a game like that eventually, and right now it's given home field back to the Rams. New Orleans can't do anything about that right now, though. All they can do is take care of their own business. Which will start with a division-clinching win in Tampa.
Giants (4-8) at Redskins (6-6): Giants-Raise your hand if you thought Mark Sanchez would be an NFL starter again. Anybody? Didn't think so. The Redskins are on their third quarterback this season, and Sanchez has only been on the team since mid-November. Not coincidentally, that's when their offense started to struggle. They've still got a shot in the NFC East, but they're definitely facing an uphill climb. And it starts with a matchup against a Giants team that beat the Bears last week and is going to relish the role of spoiler over the final month.
Colts (6-6) at Texans (9-3): Houston-Indy's playoff chances, slim as they were, really took a big hit last week with that uninspiring 6-0 loss in Jacksonville. Now they visit Houston, where the Texans can essentially wrap up the division with their 10th straight win. It really is impressive what the Texans have done after an 0-3 start. They do have a game in Philadelphia remaining, but it's conceivable that they could enter the playoffs on a 13-game winning streak (and potentially get a bye if New England stumbles).
Bengals (5-7) at Chargers (9-3): Chargers-After what they did in Pittsburgh last Sunday night, the remaining doubters of the Chargers are few and far between. They're a legitimate threat to win the AFC. They can't clinch a playoff spot this week, but a win will virtually assure it (if they win and the Ravens lose, their worst-case scenario is a five-way tie at 10-6). Of course, they're still thinking about the division, too. But they can't look past Cincinnati. Not with Kansas City, Baltimore and Denver remaining on their schedule.
Broncos (6-6) at 49ers (2-10): Denver-If there's one team no one in the AFC wants to play, it's the Denver Broncos. The Broncos have won three straight, haven't lost since their bye week, and have a favorable remaining schedule. So Denver in the playoffs isn't that absurd a proposition as it might've sounded a few weeks ago. San Francisco, meanwhile, has lost its last two games by a combined score of 70-23.
Eagles (6-6) at Cowboys (7-5): Dallas-One word to describe that performance by the Dallas defense against the Saints: impressive. If the Cowboys continue to play like that, look out! Of course, I could also say the same thing about the Eagles, who've won back-to-back division games and would tie Dallas for first place with a victory. The Cowboys are simply playing too well right now, though, and they're on extra rest after the back-to-back Thursday games. Also, how did Joe Buck and Troy Aikman manage to work out this schedule? Three straight games in Dallas for that crew. Troy, who lives in Dallas, has only had to leave home once in the last three weeks--for the Vikings-Patriots game last Sunday.
Steelers (7-4-1) at Raiders (2-10): Oakland-Pittsburgh better get its act together. Fast. The Steelers went from a first-round bye to potentially not even winning the AFC North. And let's not forget who their next two opponents are. The Steelers need to rebound big time. Unfortunately, it's their third straight game against an AFC West foe, and they're 0-3 against the division this season. On paper, the Raiders are an opponent they should be able to handle. Except they always lose when they go out there. They haven't won in Oakland since 1995. And this is probably their last chance before the Raiders move to Vegas.
Lions (4-8) at Cardinals (3-9): Detroit-I'm not sure whether that win in Lambeau last week says more about the Cardinals or the Packers. It does mean that they have a victory over somebody other than San Francisco this season, though. In fact, both of these teams have beaten Green Bay this year. Now they face each other in what might be their last best opportunity to get another win this season. And, believe it or not, a Lions win and Packers loss drops Green Bay into last place.
Rams (11-1) at Bears (8-4): Chicago-Last week, NBC flexed in Steelers-Chargers, and that was certainly a good decision. This week, they flexed into Rams-Bears. The Rams have already clinched the NFC West, and they can lock up a bye with a win. The Bears, meanwhile, after those three straight division wins, lost in overtime to the Giants last week. I do expect a bounce-back game from Chicago. Enough to slow the Rams' offense down? Possibly.
Vikings (6-5-1) at Seahawks (7-5): Seattle-ESPN has sure lucked into some great Monday night games the past few weeks, haven't they? Seattle and Minnesota currently hold the NFC wild cards, and the winner has the inside track on the 5-seed. This is the toughest part of the Vikings' schedule. They were in Chicago, then played Green Bay before going to New England last week. Now they go coast-to-coast for a matchup with the red-hot Seahawks. This would be Seattle's fourth straight victory. Nice way to cap a week that started with getting a hockey team.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 122-69-2
That would've accounted for half the divisions with still nearly a month left! At least the remaining divisions have still have the potential to give us at least some suspense down the stretch.
Jets (3-9) at Bills (4-8): Buffalo-In Week 10, the Bills absolutely dominated the Jets in every way at Met Life Stadium. Now for the rematch in Buffalo, where the Bills' only losses this season have come against the playoff-bound Chargers, Patriots and Bears. Both teams are out of it, but the Bills at least still care. The Jets did almost beat the Titans last week, but they've really been just mailing it in for a while now.
Panthers (6-6) at Browns (4-7-1): Cleveland-The Panthers were sitting pretty for a wild card berth, and even had a decent shot at winning the NFC South. That was five weeks ago when they were 6-2. Since then, they've gone 0-4 and find themselves on the outside looking in with both of their games against the Saints remaining. Cleveland, meanwhile, has been playing some inspired football. The Browns see this one as winnable, and for good reason. I'm calling the upset here.
Falcons (4-8) at Packers (4-7-1): Atlanta-Both of these teams are in a free fall. Green Bay's season officially went down the tubes when they lost to Arizona last week, a loss that cost Mike McCarthy his job (which he was going to lose anyway). Now the Packers need to win out just to avoid back-to-back sub-.500 seasons. The Falcons haven't been much better. In fact, they've lost four in a row. Which means something's gotta give.
Ravens (7-5) at Chiefs (10-2): Kansas City-Kansas City clinches a playoff spot with a win, which would set them up to clinch the division on Thursday night against the Chargers. The Ravens beat Tennessee, so they'll hold onto their wild card even with a loss. The Chiefs got a game from the Raiders last week, but found a way to pull it out and stay in the AFC driver's seat. Back at home for the first time in a month, this week could go a long way in determining whether or not that Sunday night game in Seattle right before Christmas is the only time they leave Kansas City between now and the Super Bowl.
Patriots (9-3) at Dolphins (6-6): New England-When these two met in Week 4, Miami was undefeated and had a two-game lead in the division. Ten weeks later, New England has made up five games on the Dolphins and is now on the brink of its league-mandated division title. The Patriots are also inching ever closer to their league-mandated first-round bye. They'll wrap up their 10th straight AFC East title, and the 17th of the Bradicheck Era.
Saints (10-2) at Buccaneers (5-7): New Orleans-It seems kind of hard to believe now, but Tampa Bay beat New Orleans in the season opener. That, of course, marked the last time the Saints lost until last Thursday in Dallas. I had a feeling the Saints would have a game like that eventually, and right now it's given home field back to the Rams. New Orleans can't do anything about that right now, though. All they can do is take care of their own business. Which will start with a division-clinching win in Tampa.
Giants (4-8) at Redskins (6-6): Giants-Raise your hand if you thought Mark Sanchez would be an NFL starter again. Anybody? Didn't think so. The Redskins are on their third quarterback this season, and Sanchez has only been on the team since mid-November. Not coincidentally, that's when their offense started to struggle. They've still got a shot in the NFC East, but they're definitely facing an uphill climb. And it starts with a matchup against a Giants team that beat the Bears last week and is going to relish the role of spoiler over the final month.
Colts (6-6) at Texans (9-3): Houston-Indy's playoff chances, slim as they were, really took a big hit last week with that uninspiring 6-0 loss in Jacksonville. Now they visit Houston, where the Texans can essentially wrap up the division with their 10th straight win. It really is impressive what the Texans have done after an 0-3 start. They do have a game in Philadelphia remaining, but it's conceivable that they could enter the playoffs on a 13-game winning streak (and potentially get a bye if New England stumbles).
Bengals (5-7) at Chargers (9-3): Chargers-After what they did in Pittsburgh last Sunday night, the remaining doubters of the Chargers are few and far between. They're a legitimate threat to win the AFC. They can't clinch a playoff spot this week, but a win will virtually assure it (if they win and the Ravens lose, their worst-case scenario is a five-way tie at 10-6). Of course, they're still thinking about the division, too. But they can't look past Cincinnati. Not with Kansas City, Baltimore and Denver remaining on their schedule.
Broncos (6-6) at 49ers (2-10): Denver-If there's one team no one in the AFC wants to play, it's the Denver Broncos. The Broncos have won three straight, haven't lost since their bye week, and have a favorable remaining schedule. So Denver in the playoffs isn't that absurd a proposition as it might've sounded a few weeks ago. San Francisco, meanwhile, has lost its last two games by a combined score of 70-23.
Eagles (6-6) at Cowboys (7-5): Dallas-One word to describe that performance by the Dallas defense against the Saints: impressive. If the Cowboys continue to play like that, look out! Of course, I could also say the same thing about the Eagles, who've won back-to-back division games and would tie Dallas for first place with a victory. The Cowboys are simply playing too well right now, though, and they're on extra rest after the back-to-back Thursday games. Also, how did Joe Buck and Troy Aikman manage to work out this schedule? Three straight games in Dallas for that crew. Troy, who lives in Dallas, has only had to leave home once in the last three weeks--for the Vikings-Patriots game last Sunday.
Steelers (7-4-1) at Raiders (2-10): Oakland-Pittsburgh better get its act together. Fast. The Steelers went from a first-round bye to potentially not even winning the AFC North. And let's not forget who their next two opponents are. The Steelers need to rebound big time. Unfortunately, it's their third straight game against an AFC West foe, and they're 0-3 against the division this season. On paper, the Raiders are an opponent they should be able to handle. Except they always lose when they go out there. They haven't won in Oakland since 1995. And this is probably their last chance before the Raiders move to Vegas.
Lions (4-8) at Cardinals (3-9): Detroit-I'm not sure whether that win in Lambeau last week says more about the Cardinals or the Packers. It does mean that they have a victory over somebody other than San Francisco this season, though. In fact, both of these teams have beaten Green Bay this year. Now they face each other in what might be their last best opportunity to get another win this season. And, believe it or not, a Lions win and Packers loss drops Green Bay into last place.
Rams (11-1) at Bears (8-4): Chicago-Last week, NBC flexed in Steelers-Chargers, and that was certainly a good decision. This week, they flexed into Rams-Bears. The Rams have already clinched the NFC West, and they can lock up a bye with a win. The Bears, meanwhile, after those three straight division wins, lost in overtime to the Giants last week. I do expect a bounce-back game from Chicago. Enough to slow the Rams' offense down? Possibly.
Vikings (6-5-1) at Seahawks (7-5): Seattle-ESPN has sure lucked into some great Monday night games the past few weeks, haven't they? Seattle and Minnesota currently hold the NFC wild cards, and the winner has the inside track on the 5-seed. This is the toughest part of the Vikings' schedule. They were in Chicago, then played Green Bay before going to New England last week. Now they go coast-to-coast for a matchup with the red-hot Seahawks. This would be Seattle's fourth straight victory. Nice way to cap a week that started with getting a hockey team.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 10-6
Overall: 122-69-2
Saturday, December 8, 2018
The Today's Game Ballot
It's crazy to think that Chipper Jones, who retired in 2012, is in the Hall of Fame and that Mariano Rivera, who retired in 2013, will be joining him soon. Likewise, it's crazy that guys whose careers extended well into the 90s are on the Veterans' Committee ballot.
Yet that's exactly where we stand, as the Winter Meetings get underway in their traditional way with the announcement of the Veterans' Committee vote. And this year it's the "Today's Game" Era, which is the group whose contributions to the game took place most recently. There are 10 candidates in the running to join Mariano and whoever else in Cooperstown come July.
This ballot is remarkably similar to the last time they voted on "Today's Game" Era candidates two years ago. Seven of the 10 names are the same, and both John Schuerholtz and Bud Selig were elected last time, so they obviously couldn't be on it again. The only person who was dropped altogether was Mark McGwire, with Lee Smith joining now that his time on the BBWAA ballot has expired (although, I think Smith should probably be with the players from the 80s instead). Blue Jays World Series hero Joe Carter and former Indians/Phillies Manager Charlie Manuel are the other new additions.
Of the 10 candidates, there's one whose election would be incredibly appropriate considering who'll be the headliner of the BBWAA class. George Steinbrenner has been on the ballot a few times and hasn't gotten close to the 75 percent needed for induction. I have no idea whether or not he'll finally be elected this year. But there's no question he deserves to. In fact, if I had a vote, he'd be at the top my ballot.
Steinbrenner was a larger-than-life personality, and that somewhat overshadowed his influence as an owner. Yes, he's a reason why a lot of people hate the Yankees. A lot of critics think the Yankees won simply because Steinbrenner was able to "buy" the best players. That's not entirely true. Although, his early embrace of free agency did lead to back-to-back World Series titles in 1977-78. Then there was the late 90s dynasty and one last championship for The Boss in 2009. In his 38 years as owner, you can count the losing seasons on one hand. That alone isn't easy. Being a contender for the World Series year after year is a monumental challenge. It's not as easy as the Yankees make it look. Plus, Seinfield.
A guy who played and managed for Steinbrenner was actually the leading vote-getter from 2016 among those returning to the ballot. Believe it or not, Lou Piniella is 16th on the all-time managerial wins list, and his team finished first or second 11 times in 21 years. He won the World Series with the 1990 Reds and guided the 2001 Mariners to a Major League-record 116 regular-season victories. Should he be elected, Piniella would join Joe Torre as a very good, if not Hall of Fame-worthy, player for a long time who was voted in as a manager.
My third "vote" goes to Lee Smith. When he was on the regular ballot, Smith never really garnered that much support. And I was among that group. He was the all-time saves leader for a long time, but I never viewed him as "elite." The perception of closers has changed, though. Trevor Hoffman got in last year, and Mariano will be near-unanimous this year. It should be easier for Smith now, too. The Era committees are a smaller pool of candidates and a smaller pool of voters, so all he needs is one champion to plead his case.
The precedent for that has already been set. Look at Alan Trammell last year. His highest vote total from the writers was barely over a third. But last year, his first on the Era Committee ballot, he's elected. And Ted Simmons, who was once dropped from the writers' ballot for not reaching the required five percent, just missed joining him by one vote. So, in other words, things bode well for Lee Smith.
Finally, I'd vote for Orel Hershiser. His 1988 season was one of legend, but his career was much more than that. He won 204 regular season games and had more than 2,000 strikeouts. Hershiser was also a ridiculous postseason competitor, which is something that should never be discounted. He pitched his best on the biggest stage. In fact, he was ALCS MVP with the 1995 Indians, making him the first player in history to win LCS MVP honors in both leagues. Overall, Hershiser was 8-3 in 22 career postseason games.
Harold Baines is looked at in a similar vein as Lee Smith. As closers have gotten more respect, so have DHs. And being a DH gave him a 22-year career. He may have to wait until after Edgar and Big Papi, the two best DHs in history, to get in, though. If he gets in at all. I've always viewed Harold Baines the same way I view Fred McGriff and Rafael Palmeiro. Very good for a long time, but not elite. And the Hall of Fame is reserved for elite.
Albert Belle being on the Hall of Fame ballot is really just an indication of how old I've become. He was great when he was healthy, but his career simply wasn't long enough. The fact that he's on the ballot shows the respect this committee has for his career, though.
Joe Carter is one of the all-time great Toronto Blue Jays, and his 1993 World Series clincher is one of the most legendary home runs in history. ("Touch 'em all Joe, you'll never hit a bigger home run in your life.") One legendary home run got Bill Mazeroski into the Hall of Fame, but it's probably not enough for Joe Carter to get in.
Will Clark, Davey Johnson and Charlie Manuel round out the ballot. Clark is a bit of a surprise. He's another one who falls into the very good, not great category. Johnson and Manuel each won a World Series as a manager, and Johnson was actually a key member of those powerhouse Orioles teams of the late 60s/early 70s during his playing days.
These Veterans Committee votes are always so much harder to forecast than the writers' ballot. Judging by the vote totals from two years ago, I'd say Piniella has the best chance of being elected. But I'd love to see Steinbrenner voted in this year alongside Rivera. He'd get my vote. Along with Piniella, Smith and Hershiser.
Wednesday, December 5, 2018
Hockey Headed to Seattle
When they added Vegas, we knew another one to make it an even 32 teams wasn't far off. And, just like Vegas, they hit a home run with Seattle. It's such an obvious place for hockey that it's hard to believe they've never had an NHL team before. They'll have an instant rivalry with the Canucks. And now Seattle fans finally have a winter team to cheer for again after losing their beloved Sonics to Oklahoma City. (And, with the new arena, the NBA has no reason not to expand itself and bring the Sonics back.)
We already knew Seattle was getting a team. The biggest questions going into the press conference was when they would start play, how it would be constructed and what the team would be named. Two were answered. The other won't be for a while.
They put a pretty good spin on the reasons for delaying Seattle's inaugural season until 2021-22 when they initially said it would be 2020-21. This gives them time to get everything right, and three years is enough time to finish the arena and practice facility even if there are delays. All of that is true, but there's also almost certainly going to be another lockout in the summer of 2020. This way they avoid having an expansion team start play at the same time there's uncertainty over the league's labor situation.
After absolutely nailing it with the expansion to Las Vegas, the NHL wants Seattle to have the same favorable conditions that the Golden Knights had. So, they'll benefit from the exact same expansion draft setup. It should allow them quickly become competitive, although, it's probably too much to ask that they replicate Vegas' run to the Stanley Cup Final in their initial campaign. The Golden Knights won't participate in the expansion draft, but Seattle will get one player from each of the other 30 teams. And they'll probably find their own Marc-Andre Fleury or Jonathan Marchessault somewhere in that group.
As expected, they all played coy when it came to the team name. NHL Seattle registered 13 different trademarks, so you'd have to figure one of those is likely going to be it. There's some support for "Metropolitans," the name of the Seattle team that became the first American Stanley Cup champion in 1917. The NHL has a Metropolitan Division, though, so that figures to be out.
Among the names being thrown out there are Evergreens, Emeralds and Totems (my personal favorite), but Seattle likes its alliteration. Other than the Mariners, every Seattle team's name starts with S (Seahawks, Sounders, Storm, Sonics). So, if I had to guess, I'd bet Seattle's NHL entry will continue that trend. Seattle Sockeyes anyone? (That's one of the names they registered.)
Likewise, I'd be shocked if their color scheme didn't include some combination of green and/or blue. Just like the Mariners. And the Seahawks. And the Sounders. And the Storm. And the Sonics. Although, the NHL Seattle website is pretty much all black and red. Is that some sort of hint?
There were some questions about realignment, but seeing as Seattle is basically in the Pacific Ocean, there really wasn't any chance that they'd be put in another division. Which meant somebody had to move. I saw a number of pretty creative suggestions online, but shifting the Coyotes was the realignment that would make the least number of waves (read: zero).
Arizona going to the Central was what made the most sense, too. This isn't the NFL, where Dallas is in the East and Indianapolis is in the South. You've got six teams in the Pacific time zone, and separating those three teams in Western Canada was a non-starter, which leaves the Coyotes as the odd team out. It also means that they won't need to realign again should Arizona relocate to Houston. (If they go to Quebec, however, that's a different story.)
One other big question remains, at least for me. The schedule. When Vegas joined the league, the schedule actually worked out perfectly. Four division games, three conference games, two interconference games, with the Central teams playing two division opponents a fifth time to get to 82.
However, even though all of the divisions will have the same number of teams now, the math no longer works for an 82-game schedule. It does if they increase the number of games to 84, but that seems unlikely. Which means the NHL needs to come up with some sort of solution. My guess is you'll play two teams in the other division twice instead of three times. But that's something they'll have to figure out.
The addition of Seattle also gives the NHL a chance to fix the playoff system, which pretty much everyone (except for maybe Gary Bettman) agrees is flawed. With an even number of teams in each division, it'd be very simple to ditch this whole division-based seeding system with wild cards and go back to the old way. The division winners are seeded 1 and 2, the six best teams in the conference after that, regardless of division, are seeded 3-8 and the teams are reseeded each round. That way you won't have Washington and Pittsburgh playing each other in the conference semifinals as the two best teams in the league anymore.
All of that will be resolved over the next three years. That's not what today is about, though. Today is about Seattle. Just like with Las Vegas, the NHL got this one right. Seattle's already a great pro sports town. And it's gonna be a great hockey town.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)