I've never seen anything like what's going on between the Tokyo Olympic Organizing Committee and the IOC right now. There have been plenty of disagreements between Olympic officials and host city organizers before, but nothing like this. Those issues are usually settled privately behind closed doors. Not as a very public back-and-forth.
The root of the issue is the IOC's decision to move the marathons and race walks at next Summer's Games from Tokyo to the northern city of Sapporo, which hosted the 1972 Winter Olympics. This move was made because IOC leadership, specifically President Thomas Bach, didn't like what he saw at the World Track & Field Championships in Doha, where nearly 40 percent of the competitors in the women's marathon didn't finish because of the heat (despite the race starting at midnight). Not wanting a repeat of that scene, he unilaterally decided to relocate those events to Sapporo, which is roughly 10 degrees cooler than Tokyo during the Summer.
Here's where it gets interesting, though. The IOC didn't alert anyone of this decision ahead of time. They didn't tell the people in Tokyo. They didn't tell the people in Sapporo. They just did it. In fact, a lot of people in the two cities only found out when the announcement was made. I'm not even sure if they consulted the IAAF about all of this.
So far, the IAAF has stayed out if it. And their silence on the matter has been very noticeable. Was the IAAF a part of the decision? Were they behind it? Do they have a preference one way or the other? No one knows. They haven't even released a statement on the IAAF website. Although, it's probably smart for them to not take a side. Because the races will be held regardless, whether they're in Tokyo or Sapporo.
That hasn't stopped plenty of athletes from voicing their displeasure, though. And they have a point. Canadian Evan Dunfee, who won the bronze in the men's 50 km walk in Doha, was one of the most vocal. He made the (very valid) point that the athletes have set up their training for those conditions. They knew what the weather was going to be in Doha, and they know what it's expected to be like in Tokyo. That's what they've been preparing for. Now, less than 10 months before the Games, when they're already deep into their training cycles, you're going to change things? To make it more favorable to those who haven't been putting in the work to prepare for the conditions?
Government officials in Tokyo weren't exactly happy about it, either. All of the points that they stressed were completely valid. When Tokyo was awarded the Games, this wasn't an issue. As Tokyo was preparing for the Games, the IOC praised the measures they were taking to counter the heat, from early start times to a state-of-the-art cooling system to be used throughout the course.
In response, they proposed a number of additional changes that they hoped would keep the marathons in Tokyo. That included moving the start even earlier to 5 a.m., which is sunrise in Tokyo during the summer. That's the coolest part of the day, with an average temperature of 81 degrees, which is only three degrees warmer than it is in Sapporo during that time of the year. And it was also hot during the Atlanta and Athens Olympic marathons, yet no move was made to relocate them.
They also stressed some practical points. The marathon and race walk courses were designed to showcase the city's beautiful architecture. More importantly, though, they were going to be free. Unlike in Rio, Olympic tickets are hard to come by in Japan. And they're costly. So, the race walks and marathons might've been the only opportunity some people had to see an Olympic event live.
Another concern they had was a cost-related one. A move like this isn't easy logistically. They'd already spent a bunch of money to get the course in Tokyo ready. Now they have to spend a bunch to prepare one in Sapporo. On nine months' notice!
Mostly, though, they were upset by the lack of transparency. There was no consultation. And I'm not even sure there was any advance notice. Then, after it was announced, they were told the decision was final. Although, the IOC did agree to a four-party meeting with the Tokyo government, Japanese government and Tokyo Olympic Organizing Committee to discuss the change and address those concerns (why not the Sapporo government?).
When the move was first announced, IOC Coordination Commission chairman John Coates said it was "unlikely" the IOC would change its mind. After the meeting, it was indeed confirmed that the track & field road events would be moved. Although, it was essentially the IOC telling them that they have the authority to change an Olympic venue, so there was very little Tokyo could actually do about it. They did promise not to move any other events, though. (And the Paralympic marathon will likely remain in Tokyo.)
Why not? Why just the marathons and race walks? Why not any other endurance events in other sports? Will it be less hot and humid during the cycling road races or the triathlons? Or was it just because track & field is the marquee Olympic sport and made a dumb decision to have its World Championships in Doha? And if those World Championships hadn't been in Doha, would the IOC have freaked out about next year? They already knew it was going to be hot in Tokyo, yet it's suddenly a major issue now?
Tokyo Governor Yuriko Koike, who has been the most vocal critic of the IOC's decision and spearheaded the campaign to keep the marathons in Tokyo, remains unconvinced that this is the right move. But she also acknowledged there was nothing she could do about it. She expressed her disappointment and stressed that this isn't an agreement. It's the IOC exercising its authority to make the call, whether the people in Tokyo like it or not.
How much this will ultimately end up impacting the Tokyo/Sapporo Olympic marathons remains to be seen. Sapporo is also hosting some soccer games, so they were already going to play a small role in these Olympics. And this will give the IOC an opportunity to go there and check the city out (without violating any rules) in advance of Sapporo's likely bid for the 2030 Winter Games.
But I definitely feel for the athletes, who not only have to adjust their training regimens, but are going from being right in the heart of the host city to competing 700 miles away. This is especially tough for the athletes in the men's marathoners, which is traditionally held on the final day. Will any of them even be able to make it back to Tokyo for the Closing Ceremony? Although, the conditions they'll be racing in also figure to be much more favorable.
Ultimately, this is a bad look for both parties. The IOC might've made the right move. They might not have. But, either way, they could've handled it better. At the very least, they could've given Tokyo (and Sapporo) a head's up. Tokyo, meanwhile, had a very public spat with the IOC and ended up the loser. Now they need lick their wounds and regroup. Because, as they've noted, the 2020 Olympics are less than 10 months away!
Thursday, October 31, 2019
Tuesday, October 29, 2019
Here Come the Robo Umps
It took a high-profile non-call on an obvious pass interference in the NFC Championship Game for the NFL to finally make pass interference reviewable. And don't be surprised if some high-profile missed calls by home plate umpire Lance Barksdale last night in Game 5 results in MLB introducing the long-talked-about robo ump. Especially after Game 5, those calls are getting louder!
Simply put, Barksdale did NOT have a good game behind the plate. In the sixth inning, a beautiful pitch to Michael Brantley hit the inside corner and sure looked like an obvious strike. Barksdale called it a ball, evidently because Nationals catcher Yan Gomes stood up too fast. Gomes, knowing his pitcher made the pitch, popped up to make the throw down to third. Yet Barksdale thought that by doing that he was showing him up. So he called it a ball. In the World Series! Sorry, but the World Series is no place for a pissing contest between a catcher and an umpire.
Then, in the bottom of the seventh, it got even worse. Gerrit Cole threw the EXACT SAME PITCH on consecutive 3-2 counts to Ryan Zimmerman and Victor Robles. The first one he called a ball, resulting in a walk to Zimmerman. With Robles up, though, he called it a strike, ending the inning. The replays showed that the pitch didn't just end up out of the strike zone, it was never a strike to begin with!
None of those calls are why the Nationals lost the game. Gerrit Cole beat them, not Lance Barksdale. But what it did illustrate is the need for consistency. Barksdale seemed to have two different strike zones. One for Gerrit Cole, one for the Nationals' pitchers. And, as the live mic that caught his exchange with Gomes showed us, he let his ego factor into his decision-making process. Which is also something that should never happen. Especially in the World Series.
Negotiations for a new contract between Major League Baseball and the umpires' union are set to begin soon. And you can bet the robo ump will be at the forefront of those discussions. Because, like instant replay, robot umpires seem inevitable. So we might as well embrace it. And, like replay, the robo ump might actually help.
Like many, I was skeptical about the idea of a robo umpire at first. Then I saw it in action at an Atlantic League game and realized it's not really as bad as we all thought. All it is is a box positioned behind home plate that relays a signal to the (human) home plate umpire whether or not the pitch ended up in the strike zone.
Frankly, it's not nearly as obtrusive as I expected it to be. AND, it's a lot more objective. Because it has the same strike zone for anybody. The machine has no idea if it's Gerrit Cole or Joe Ross or me out there. And it doesn't care, either. Which it shouldn't.
One of the most frequent complaints batters have about home plate umpires is strike zone inconsistency. Robo umps would take care of that. They also don't like it when the zone expands. If you give the pitcher one corner, they can make an adjustment. If you give the pitcher both, they can't. Likewise, if you want to call the low pitch a strike, fine. Then let the batter have the high pitch. Especially when he can't hit it. (If the batter can't hit the pitch, it's most likely not a strike!) Just like the robo ump would be the same for every pitcher, it'd be the same for every hitter.
Most importantly, the robo ump isn't removing the human umpire from the game. It's simply a tool to assist them in doing their job. Just like replay, which has been embraced by everyone. The whole point of replay is to get the call right. It's the same thing with the robo ump. It helps them make the call on borderline pitches and takes the blame away from them when people don't like the call.
After introducing it in the Atlantic League, they're also trying it out in the Arizona Fall League. Admittedly, there are still some bugs to work out. If a pitch bounces and ends up in the zone, it gets registered as a strike when it's obviously not. But those are simple fixes. And that's another reason why the human umpire isn't going anywhere. He'd have override power in situations like that (and he obviously would need to call plays at the plate, etc.).
Ultimately, I don't think the robo umpire would be nearly as bad as we originally all thought. And if you can get a traditionalist like me on board, that's saying something! But I'm not the only convert. A number of players, managers and team executives who were originally skeptical/hesitant have changed their opinion about robo umps, too.
And, just like the NFC Championship Game and pass interference, the magnified setting of the World Series has only increased the momentum in the direction of robo umpires. It might not be next season, but it sure looks like it's going to happen sooner rather than later. Personally, I don't think it can happen soon enough.
Simply put, Barksdale did NOT have a good game behind the plate. In the sixth inning, a beautiful pitch to Michael Brantley hit the inside corner and sure looked like an obvious strike. Barksdale called it a ball, evidently because Nationals catcher Yan Gomes stood up too fast. Gomes, knowing his pitcher made the pitch, popped up to make the throw down to third. Yet Barksdale thought that by doing that he was showing him up. So he called it a ball. In the World Series! Sorry, but the World Series is no place for a pissing contest between a catcher and an umpire.
Then, in the bottom of the seventh, it got even worse. Gerrit Cole threw the EXACT SAME PITCH on consecutive 3-2 counts to Ryan Zimmerman and Victor Robles. The first one he called a ball, resulting in a walk to Zimmerman. With Robles up, though, he called it a strike, ending the inning. The replays showed that the pitch didn't just end up out of the strike zone, it was never a strike to begin with!
None of those calls are why the Nationals lost the game. Gerrit Cole beat them, not Lance Barksdale. But what it did illustrate is the need for consistency. Barksdale seemed to have two different strike zones. One for Gerrit Cole, one for the Nationals' pitchers. And, as the live mic that caught his exchange with Gomes showed us, he let his ego factor into his decision-making process. Which is also something that should never happen. Especially in the World Series.
Negotiations for a new contract between Major League Baseball and the umpires' union are set to begin soon. And you can bet the robo ump will be at the forefront of those discussions. Because, like instant replay, robot umpires seem inevitable. So we might as well embrace it. And, like replay, the robo ump might actually help.
Like many, I was skeptical about the idea of a robo umpire at first. Then I saw it in action at an Atlantic League game and realized it's not really as bad as we all thought. All it is is a box positioned behind home plate that relays a signal to the (human) home plate umpire whether or not the pitch ended up in the strike zone.
Frankly, it's not nearly as obtrusive as I expected it to be. AND, it's a lot more objective. Because it has the same strike zone for anybody. The machine has no idea if it's Gerrit Cole or Joe Ross or me out there. And it doesn't care, either. Which it shouldn't.
One of the most frequent complaints batters have about home plate umpires is strike zone inconsistency. Robo umps would take care of that. They also don't like it when the zone expands. If you give the pitcher one corner, they can make an adjustment. If you give the pitcher both, they can't. Likewise, if you want to call the low pitch a strike, fine. Then let the batter have the high pitch. Especially when he can't hit it. (If the batter can't hit the pitch, it's most likely not a strike!) Just like the robo ump would be the same for every pitcher, it'd be the same for every hitter.
Most importantly, the robo ump isn't removing the human umpire from the game. It's simply a tool to assist them in doing their job. Just like replay, which has been embraced by everyone. The whole point of replay is to get the call right. It's the same thing with the robo ump. It helps them make the call on borderline pitches and takes the blame away from them when people don't like the call.
After introducing it in the Atlantic League, they're also trying it out in the Arizona Fall League. Admittedly, there are still some bugs to work out. If a pitch bounces and ends up in the zone, it gets registered as a strike when it's obviously not. But those are simple fixes. And that's another reason why the human umpire isn't going anywhere. He'd have override power in situations like that (and he obviously would need to call plays at the plate, etc.).
Ultimately, I don't think the robo umpire would be nearly as bad as we originally all thought. And if you can get a traditionalist like me on board, that's saying something! But I'm not the only convert. A number of players, managers and team executives who were originally skeptical/hesitant have changed their opinion about robo umps, too.
And, just like the NFC Championship Game and pass interference, the magnified setting of the World Series has only increased the momentum in the direction of robo umpires. It might not be next season, but it sure looks like it's going to happen sooner rather than later. Personally, I don't think it can happen soon enough.
Monday, October 28, 2019
What Were They Thinking?
I've found myself asking that question a lot recently...about a number of different situations. It's not like people weren't going to find out about these stupid acts. And it's not like there weren't going to be consequences for them. So why even do them in the first place?
One story hijacked the first few days of the World Series. That was, of course, what former Astros Assistant GM Brandon Taubman did in the clubhouse following the clinching Game 6 of the ALCS. For some reason, he went up to a group of female reporters (who were covering the postgame celebration as part of their jobs) and repeatedly shouted, "I'm so f------- glad we got Osuna," referring to Houston closer Roberto Osuna, who served a 75-game suspension for domestic violence last season.
This story has been told over and over again, and, really, it gets worse every time I hear it. Why, in God's name, did he decide, unsolicited, to do this? Right after Houston won the pennant no less! What purpose did it serve? Beyond that, how would this, in any way, be a good look for someone who's trying to move up the ladder and eventually be a Major League GM?
Did anyone seriously think this story wouldn't get out? And, once it did, why would the Astros condone his actions by not doing the obvious thing and fire him right away?
In fact, the organization only managed to make things worse. They not only defended Taubman, they made up a ridiculous "explanation" that his outburst wasn't directed at anybody in particular and that he was simply expressing his support for a player. An explanation that made absolutely no sense considering said player had just blown a save that would've clinched the pennant and was only bailed out by Jose Altuve's walk-off home run. Sure seems like an odd time to say how much you love the guy!
The most absurd part, though, was that they threw the Sports Illustrated reporter under the bus and accused her of fabricating the story, even though her account was corroborated by a number of witnesses. The Astros, meanwhile, claimed to have their own witness statements backing up Taubman's version of what transpired, corroborated by no one. Here's a transcript of that entire "investigation":
One story hijacked the first few days of the World Series. That was, of course, what former Astros Assistant GM Brandon Taubman did in the clubhouse following the clinching Game 6 of the ALCS. For some reason, he went up to a group of female reporters (who were covering the postgame celebration as part of their jobs) and repeatedly shouted, "I'm so f------- glad we got Osuna," referring to Houston closer Roberto Osuna, who served a 75-game suspension for domestic violence last season.
This story has been told over and over again, and, really, it gets worse every time I hear it. Why, in God's name, did he decide, unsolicited, to do this? Right after Houston won the pennant no less! What purpose did it serve? Beyond that, how would this, in any way, be a good look for someone who's trying to move up the ladder and eventually be a Major League GM?
Did anyone seriously think this story wouldn't get out? And, once it did, why would the Astros condone his actions by not doing the obvious thing and fire him right away?
In fact, the organization only managed to make things worse. They not only defended Taubman, they made up a ridiculous "explanation" that his outburst wasn't directed at anybody in particular and that he was simply expressing his support for a player. An explanation that made absolutely no sense considering said player had just blown a save that would've clinched the pennant and was only bailed out by Jose Altuve's walk-off home run. Sure seems like an odd time to say how much you love the guy!
The most absurd part, though, was that they threw the Sports Illustrated reporter under the bus and accused her of fabricating the story, even though her account was corroborated by a number of witnesses. The Astros, meanwhile, claimed to have their own witness statements backing up Taubman's version of what transpired, corroborated by no one. Here's a transcript of that entire "investigation":
- Investigator: "Brandon, were your comments directed at that group of female reporters?"
- Taubman: "No."
- Investigator: "OK. That's good enough for me!"
Taubman did "apologize," but only after the public backlash grew. And that apology wasn't sincere at all and was clearly written by the team's PR people, albeit unsuccessfully. Because all it did was piss off Major League Baseball.
Finally, after almost a week, the Astros did what they should've done immediately and fired Taubman (which MLB was going to make them do if they didn't do it themselves). How did they not come to that conclusion immediately? Would they have even come to it at all if MLB hadn't essentially forced their hand?
They did everything wrong along the way. Even in their statement after the fact, where they finally acknowledged "We were wrong," they never said what they were wrong about. They were trying to save face. They weren't admitting they were wrong for what they did to the journalist. She didn't get her apology until much later, when she received a personal letter from the Astros' owner. By then, it was too little, too late.
And, frankly, the Astros brought this upon themselves. They had to know that trading for a guy who was in the midst of a lengthy suspension for domestic violence wasn't going to go over well with everyone. Yet they did it anyway. Which was their prerogative. But if you want to bring on the controversy, you have to deal with the fallout, too. Which, it seems, is something they don't want to do.
What the Astros would seemingly prefer is that everyone just forgets about the whole domestic violence thing and only focuses on baseball. Which is easier said than done. Especially when one of your own employees runs his mouth about how great Osuna is...to a bunch of reporters no less! One of whom was wearing a purple domestic violence bracelet.
There will be plenty of professional consequences for Taubman. He'll likely face an MLB suspension that he'll have to serve once hired by another team, provided another team ever does hire him. Why would one? Especially right now? It's more than likely that he threw away any chance he had at a career in a Major League front office. And for what? (Although, I suppose he could always go work for the Knicks. He'd fit right in with Jim Dolan and Isiah Thomas.)
But Taubman shouldn't be the only one who pays the price for this sorry episode. Because pretty much everything that happened here is beyond unprofessional. The team knew the Sports Illustrated story was true, yet released a statement trying to discredit it anyway. A statement that they knew was untrue. Yet somebody approved it and somebody sent it out. Those people should be joining Taubman on the unemployment line.
Major League Baseball needs to send a message that this type of behavior is not OK. Frankly, Major League Baseball never should've had to get involved. But that's what happens when a team ignores facts and professionalism in an attempt to avoid firing somebody who deserved to fired. And that's the irony of all this. If they'd just fired him in the first place like they should've, this whole thing wouldn't have turned into a "thing" at all.
Major League Baseball needs to send a message that this type of behavior is not OK. Frankly, Major League Baseball never should've had to get involved. But that's what happens when a team ignores facts and professionalism in an attempt to avoid firing somebody who deserved to fired. And that's the irony of all this. If they'd just fired him in the first place like they should've, this whole thing wouldn't have turned into a "thing" at all.
Sunday, October 27, 2019
NFL 100: Week 8
Between work and the World Series, I've had a busy week. So busy, in fact, that I haven't been able to blog about several topics I've wanted to. But those will have to wait at least another day. Because it's Sunday, which means it's time for the weekly football picks!
As the NFL season hits the midway point, the adage "defense wins championships" sure seems to be holding true this year. The Patriots and 49ers are undefeated because of their defenses. The Packers, Saints, Chiefs and Ravens all have strong defenses, too. So it's no surprise that they're in first place, either. Although, I must admit, Patrick Mahomes' injury puts a bit of a damper on the Packers-Chiefs Sunday night game. Which is a bummer. Because that would've been an entertaining matchup (even though I was already planning on watching Astros-Nationals anyway).
Thursday Night: Minnesota (Win)
Seahawks (5-2) at Falcons (1-6): Seattle-Atlanta's season is lost, and its going to cost some people their jobs. And now Matt Ryan is out, which means things aren't going to get any better for the Falcons anytime soon. Especially against Seattle. The Seahawks' home loss to the Ravens last week was surprising not because they lost, but because of how convincing it is. Fortunately for them, the Falcons are nowhere near in the same league as Baltimore.
Eagles (3-4) at Bills (5-1): Philadelphia-This is one of the most intriguing matchups of the week. The surprising Bills have only lost to the Patriots and are currently the top AFC wild card. The Eagles, meanwhile, are one of the more confusing teams in football. They look great one week, then lay an egg the next. Like last week in Dallas. Now they've lost two in a row and are under .500. But....their next three games after this one are at home. So, a win here gives the Eagles a great chance to go on a roll. Which they'll need to do if they have any playoff aspirations.
Chargers (2-5) at Bears (3-3): Chicago-If not for the Falcons, we'd be talking about the Chargers as the most disappointing team in the league. Other than the uniforms, they simply don't look like the same team as last year. The Bears, meanwhile, look like a completely different team than they were earlier this season. After two straight losses, they need a win. Especially since the Vikings and Packers both already have six. Chicago does what it can to keep pace by handing the Chargers another close loss.
Giants (2-5) at Lions (2-3-1): Detroit-So, maybe the problems were more than just Eli. After all the fanfare and the two wins that marked the start of the Daniel Jones Era, reality has set back in for the Giants. Last week's loss to the Cardinals was their third straight. Detroit, meanwhile, have also dropped three straight. So we've got two desperate teams meeting here. The Lions were a little more competitive in their three losses than the Giants, and the game is in Detroit. Thus, the Lions are the pick.
Buccaneers (2-4) at Titans (3-4): Tennessee-Jason Pierre-Paul will evidently be activated by the Bucs for this game! Frankly, I didn't even know he was still playing! Anyway, they take on a Titans team that finally figured out how to score last week! I'm not going to give Ryan Tannehill all the credit, but the QB switch definitely worked...at least for one week. Make it two. The Titans get to .500.
Broncos (2-5) at Colts (4-2): Indianapolis-Remember when this game was Manning vs. Luck and it was such a big deal that it was one of the marquee games on "Sunday Night Football?" Oh, how times have changed! Now it's so irrelevant, that it was flexed from 4:25 to 1:00. Indianapolis took over first place in the AFC South with a victory over the Texans last week. The Broncos, meanwhile, got their butts kicked at home by Kansas City, which snapped their two-game winning streak. Other than that, Denver has lost a lot of close ones, and I think they will again.
Bengals (0-7) vs. Rams (4-3): Rams-London sure is a long way from Los Angeles! But that's the deal the Rams made when they moved back. Maybe they'll find their offense while they're over there! Unfortunately for the British fans, they'll also be subjected to watching the Bengals. The last time Cincinnati played in London, the game ended in a tie (which the Brits are used to from watching the other "football"). That seems unlikely to happen this time.
Cardinals (3-3-1) at Saints (6-1): New Orleans-The importance of a good backup quarterback. Drew Brees missed five games. The Saints went 5-0. Now he's back--one week earlier than expected--as New Orleans welcomes Arizona to the Superdome. The Cardinals have suddenly won three in a row, but let's not be too quick to jump on that bandwagon. The three teams they've beaten are Cincinnati, Atlanta and the Giants. Even without Alvin Kamara, New Orleans is in a different class.
Jets (1-5) at Jaguars (3-4): Jets-They upset Dallas convincingly, which got a lot of us believing that all the preseason Jets hype might be justified. Then Monday night's game against the Patriots happened. To call it a debacle would be generous. It was ugly from the start and never got better. Jacksonville, meanwhile, is competitive every week and has a great opportunity to even its record at 4-4 this week. For some reason, I think the Jets defense will give Gardner Minshew all sorts of problems, though.
Panthers (4-2) at 49ers (6-0): San Francisco-Last week, I got into a Facebook discussion where I said that the 49ers' being undefeated is more an indication of who they've played than how good they are. Personally, I think they're, at best, only the third-best team in the NFC. New Orleans and Green Bay are both better (and Minnesota might be, too). Don't get me wrong. San Francisco is good. That defense is legit. But they can't score! And as the schedule gets harder, the losses will start coming. Potentially as early as this week. Although, I do think their defense will come up with a big late stop and the 49ers will get to 7-0.
Browns (2-4) at Patriots (7-0): New England-When the schedule came out, so many people were looking forward to this game. And with good reason. The Browns are a good, exciting young team. They still are, even if their record doesn't indicate that. Unfortunately, facing the Patriots defense is the exact opposite of what this Cleveland team needs right now. Things are finally going to start getting harder for the Patriots soon (four of New England's seven wins have come in division games). Not until next week when they go to Baltimore, though.
Raiders (3-3) at Texans (4-3): Houston-Good call by the NFL and CBS to flex this one into the second late game. In fact, I thought they had even made it the national game for a little while (even though I knew it was unlikely they changed it from New England-Cleveland). Regardless, it's a key test for both of them. It'll also be important for playoff positioning should they both end up in the wild card race. Indy seems to have Houston's number, but the Texans play well against everybody else. That includes the Raiders, who finally get to end their six-week coast-to-coast (and across the ocean) odyssey. Whether they're 4-3 or 3-4, they'll take either one.
Packers (6-1) at Chiefs (5-2): Green Bay-Yes, it's a bummer that it won't be Rodgers vs. Mahomes. But that does nothing to take away the excitement of this matchup. It was the Super Bowl I matchup, and NBC has been promoting all week that it could easily be a Super Bowl LIV preview, as well. (And, of course, it gave NFL Network an excuse to show Super Bowl I, which is always fun!) I'd love to see Mahomes go against the Packers defense, but even if he was healthy, I'm not sure it would matter. Not with the way Rodgers and the Green Bay offense have been carving up opponents this season. And, don't forget, last year's marquee interconference matchup involving the Chiefs turned into a shootout at the LA Coliseum. Don't be surprised if the same thing happens again.
Dolphins (0-6) at Steelers (2-4): Pittsburgh-America will be subjected to Miami on Monday night. I get why they did it. Dolphins-Steelers is a matchup with a lot of history that they want to feature as a part of the anniversary. I just wish the 2019 versions of these teams warranted the national showcase. In fact, this is Pittsburgh's second home Monday night game against a winless opponent this season (and it's only Week 8!). The first one went pretty well (a 27-3 victory over Cincinnati). This one shouldn't be much different.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 59-47-1
As the NFL season hits the midway point, the adage "defense wins championships" sure seems to be holding true this year. The Patriots and 49ers are undefeated because of their defenses. The Packers, Saints, Chiefs and Ravens all have strong defenses, too. So it's no surprise that they're in first place, either. Although, I must admit, Patrick Mahomes' injury puts a bit of a damper on the Packers-Chiefs Sunday night game. Which is a bummer. Because that would've been an entertaining matchup (even though I was already planning on watching Astros-Nationals anyway).
Thursday Night: Minnesota (Win)
Seahawks (5-2) at Falcons (1-6): Seattle-Atlanta's season is lost, and its going to cost some people their jobs. And now Matt Ryan is out, which means things aren't going to get any better for the Falcons anytime soon. Especially against Seattle. The Seahawks' home loss to the Ravens last week was surprising not because they lost, but because of how convincing it is. Fortunately for them, the Falcons are nowhere near in the same league as Baltimore.
Eagles (3-4) at Bills (5-1): Philadelphia-This is one of the most intriguing matchups of the week. The surprising Bills have only lost to the Patriots and are currently the top AFC wild card. The Eagles, meanwhile, are one of the more confusing teams in football. They look great one week, then lay an egg the next. Like last week in Dallas. Now they've lost two in a row and are under .500. But....their next three games after this one are at home. So, a win here gives the Eagles a great chance to go on a roll. Which they'll need to do if they have any playoff aspirations.
Chargers (2-5) at Bears (3-3): Chicago-If not for the Falcons, we'd be talking about the Chargers as the most disappointing team in the league. Other than the uniforms, they simply don't look like the same team as last year. The Bears, meanwhile, look like a completely different team than they were earlier this season. After two straight losses, they need a win. Especially since the Vikings and Packers both already have six. Chicago does what it can to keep pace by handing the Chargers another close loss.
Giants (2-5) at Lions (2-3-1): Detroit-So, maybe the problems were more than just Eli. After all the fanfare and the two wins that marked the start of the Daniel Jones Era, reality has set back in for the Giants. Last week's loss to the Cardinals was their third straight. Detroit, meanwhile, have also dropped three straight. So we've got two desperate teams meeting here. The Lions were a little more competitive in their three losses than the Giants, and the game is in Detroit. Thus, the Lions are the pick.
Buccaneers (2-4) at Titans (3-4): Tennessee-Jason Pierre-Paul will evidently be activated by the Bucs for this game! Frankly, I didn't even know he was still playing! Anyway, they take on a Titans team that finally figured out how to score last week! I'm not going to give Ryan Tannehill all the credit, but the QB switch definitely worked...at least for one week. Make it two. The Titans get to .500.
Broncos (2-5) at Colts (4-2): Indianapolis-Remember when this game was Manning vs. Luck and it was such a big deal that it was one of the marquee games on "Sunday Night Football?" Oh, how times have changed! Now it's so irrelevant, that it was flexed from 4:25 to 1:00. Indianapolis took over first place in the AFC South with a victory over the Texans last week. The Broncos, meanwhile, got their butts kicked at home by Kansas City, which snapped their two-game winning streak. Other than that, Denver has lost a lot of close ones, and I think they will again.
Bengals (0-7) vs. Rams (4-3): Rams-London sure is a long way from Los Angeles! But that's the deal the Rams made when they moved back. Maybe they'll find their offense while they're over there! Unfortunately for the British fans, they'll also be subjected to watching the Bengals. The last time Cincinnati played in London, the game ended in a tie (which the Brits are used to from watching the other "football"). That seems unlikely to happen this time.
Cardinals (3-3-1) at Saints (6-1): New Orleans-The importance of a good backup quarterback. Drew Brees missed five games. The Saints went 5-0. Now he's back--one week earlier than expected--as New Orleans welcomes Arizona to the Superdome. The Cardinals have suddenly won three in a row, but let's not be too quick to jump on that bandwagon. The three teams they've beaten are Cincinnati, Atlanta and the Giants. Even without Alvin Kamara, New Orleans is in a different class.
Jets (1-5) at Jaguars (3-4): Jets-They upset Dallas convincingly, which got a lot of us believing that all the preseason Jets hype might be justified. Then Monday night's game against the Patriots happened. To call it a debacle would be generous. It was ugly from the start and never got better. Jacksonville, meanwhile, is competitive every week and has a great opportunity to even its record at 4-4 this week. For some reason, I think the Jets defense will give Gardner Minshew all sorts of problems, though.
Panthers (4-2) at 49ers (6-0): San Francisco-Last week, I got into a Facebook discussion where I said that the 49ers' being undefeated is more an indication of who they've played than how good they are. Personally, I think they're, at best, only the third-best team in the NFC. New Orleans and Green Bay are both better (and Minnesota might be, too). Don't get me wrong. San Francisco is good. That defense is legit. But they can't score! And as the schedule gets harder, the losses will start coming. Potentially as early as this week. Although, I do think their defense will come up with a big late stop and the 49ers will get to 7-0.
Browns (2-4) at Patriots (7-0): New England-When the schedule came out, so many people were looking forward to this game. And with good reason. The Browns are a good, exciting young team. They still are, even if their record doesn't indicate that. Unfortunately, facing the Patriots defense is the exact opposite of what this Cleveland team needs right now. Things are finally going to start getting harder for the Patriots soon (four of New England's seven wins have come in division games). Not until next week when they go to Baltimore, though.
Raiders (3-3) at Texans (4-3): Houston-Good call by the NFL and CBS to flex this one into the second late game. In fact, I thought they had even made it the national game for a little while (even though I knew it was unlikely they changed it from New England-Cleveland). Regardless, it's a key test for both of them. It'll also be important for playoff positioning should they both end up in the wild card race. Indy seems to have Houston's number, but the Texans play well against everybody else. That includes the Raiders, who finally get to end their six-week coast-to-coast (and across the ocean) odyssey. Whether they're 4-3 or 3-4, they'll take either one.
Packers (6-1) at Chiefs (5-2): Green Bay-Yes, it's a bummer that it won't be Rodgers vs. Mahomes. But that does nothing to take away the excitement of this matchup. It was the Super Bowl I matchup, and NBC has been promoting all week that it could easily be a Super Bowl LIV preview, as well. (And, of course, it gave NFL Network an excuse to show Super Bowl I, which is always fun!) I'd love to see Mahomes go against the Packers defense, but even if he was healthy, I'm not sure it would matter. Not with the way Rodgers and the Green Bay offense have been carving up opponents this season. And, don't forget, last year's marquee interconference matchup involving the Chiefs turned into a shootout at the LA Coliseum. Don't be surprised if the same thing happens again.
Dolphins (0-6) at Steelers (2-4): Pittsburgh-America will be subjected to Miami on Monday night. I get why they did it. Dolphins-Steelers is a matchup with a lot of history that they want to feature as a part of the anniversary. I just wish the 2019 versions of these teams warranted the national showcase. In fact, this is Pittsburgh's second home Monday night game against a winless opponent this season (and it's only Week 8!). The first one went pretty well (a 27-3 victory over Cincinnati). This one shouldn't be much different.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 59-47-1
Tuesday, October 22, 2019
Starting Pitching Reigns Supreme
If there's one thing that I'm looking forward to the most about this World Series it's this--both teams have outstanding starting pitching! In this Era of the Opener where starting pitching has been so devalued, the two teams that reached the World Series got there because of their starting pitching.
The Astros and Nationals have really made a pretty convincing counterargument to the whole "opener" thing. Just like the Red Sox and Dodgers did last year. And the Astros and Dodgers did two years ago. So did the Cubs and Indians in 2016. And need I remind you about the 2015 Mets' rotation?
As the saying goes, "You're only as good as your next day's starting pitcher." That's why Houston, despite already having Justin Verlander and Gerrit Cole, traded for Zack Greinke (Arizona's No. 1) at the deadline (to be their No. 3!). That's why Washington, after losing Bryce Harper, doubled down on starting pitching and signed Patrick Corbin as a free agent to join Max Scherzer and Stephen Strasburg. That's why both of these teams won the pennant.
Starting pitching is what wins in October. Just ask the Yankees. Last year they lost to the Red Sox primarily because Boston's starting pitching was better than theirs. In 2017, they lost the ALCS because of the Astros' starting pitching. And the same thing happened again this year. Meanwhile, in the NLCS, St. Louis had absolutely no chance. Because of the Nationals' dominant pitching staff.
What the past few postseasons have proven is that, no matter how much some people might want to argue otherwise, the starting pitcher is still the most important player on the team. GMs and managers know that. Did the Astros need Greinke? No. But they went and got him anyway to make their strength that much stronger. Meanwhile, you've got teams desperate for starting pitching while Houston is stockpiling it. Do you think that's a coincidence?
That's the whole thing about the "opener" strategy, which was started by the Rays last year and has become all the rage across the Majors. It's not as simple as I'm about to make it sound, but teams don't use "openers" because they don't value starting pitching. They use them because they do. And they either don't have a starter that day or, more likely, don't have one good enough.
It's true that there are only so many worthwhile starting pitchers in the Majors these days. Which is a symptom of the modern game and its overemphasis on eight-man bullpens (another reason teams use "openers") filled with power arm after power arm. Managers are scared to let starters go beyond six innings and/or, God forbid, face the lineup a third time. Which makes the guys who can do that, guys like Scherzer or Verlander, an even more valuable commodity.
One of the articles I read today previewing the series hit the nail right on the head. It basically said "develop hitting, sign pitching." That's exactly what the Astros have done. Altuve, Bregman, Springer and Correa were all drafted by Houston. Verlander, Cole and Greinke were all acquired via trade. With the exception of Strasburg, it's the same thing in Washington. Scherzer and Corbin were both free agents. But most of their position players (Anthony Rendon, Juan Soto, Trea Turner, even going all the way back to the original National, Ryan Zimmerman) are home grown.
Of course, they also both benefited from hitting on some high draft picks. The Nationals finished last in five of their first six years after moving from Montreal (and were second-to-last the other time). And they had those back-to-back 100-loss seasons that resulted in back-to-back No. 1 picks...which they turned into Stephen Strasburg and the since departed Bryce Harper. In the last eight years, they've finished either first or second every year, made the playoffs five times, and won the first pennant in franchise history.
Houston's path was similar. All of this was well-documented during their 2017 World Series run, but the Astros tore it down completely. They lost at least 106 games in three consecutive seasons. It yielded them a No. 1 overall pick (Correa) and a No. 2 (Bregman). Now they've won 100 in three straight years and are in the World Series for the second time in three seasons, with an ALCS loss in between. Clearly what they've both done has worked, which gives hope to fans of the teams currently committed to similar tank jobs.
For both teams, though, it's all about the pitching. Because their turnarounds didn't take off until they got the starting pitching to go with the offense. And it's starting pitching. You have all these teams putting this huge emphasis on their bullpens, yet that's arguably the weakness for both World Series participants. (The bullpen, or lack thereof, was usually cited as the reason why the Nationals could never get past the Division Series until this year.) It's not like they have bad bullpens, either. And the fact that they don't overuse them makes those bullpens stronger. (You can ask the Yankees about bullpen overuse, too.)
So, basically, this series is going to come down to the starters. Specifically which team's offense is able to get to the other's starters. Because A.J. Hinch and Dave Martinez are both expecting to get a lot innings out of their horses. And runs are going to be at a premium.
By winning Game 6 against the Yankees, the Astros were able to set up their pitching the way they wanted, too. Because instead of Game 7, Cole can pitch Game 1, where he'll go against Scherzer. Then it's Verlander vs. Strasburg in Game 2 (which it would've been anyway). Greinke goes in Game 3 for Houston, while Washington hasn't named a starter (presumably because Corbin is a bullpen option in Games 1 & 2). Either way, it's Corbin and Anibal Sanchez in DC. Anibal Sanchez, who nearly threw a no-hitter in Game 1 of the NLCS is the Nationals' No. 4 starter!
Based on their body of work, the Astros deserve to be the favorites. And the Nationals have to overcome the long layoff, which hasn't worked out well for recent pennant winners who've had a similar break. I do think Houston will win the series. The pitching is a wash, but the Astros have a deeper lineup. So, for all the talk of the pitching, that'll be the difference. Astros in six.
The Astros and Nationals have really made a pretty convincing counterargument to the whole "opener" thing. Just like the Red Sox and Dodgers did last year. And the Astros and Dodgers did two years ago. So did the Cubs and Indians in 2016. And need I remind you about the 2015 Mets' rotation?
As the saying goes, "You're only as good as your next day's starting pitcher." That's why Houston, despite already having Justin Verlander and Gerrit Cole, traded for Zack Greinke (Arizona's No. 1) at the deadline (to be their No. 3!). That's why Washington, after losing Bryce Harper, doubled down on starting pitching and signed Patrick Corbin as a free agent to join Max Scherzer and Stephen Strasburg. That's why both of these teams won the pennant.
Starting pitching is what wins in October. Just ask the Yankees. Last year they lost to the Red Sox primarily because Boston's starting pitching was better than theirs. In 2017, they lost the ALCS because of the Astros' starting pitching. And the same thing happened again this year. Meanwhile, in the NLCS, St. Louis had absolutely no chance. Because of the Nationals' dominant pitching staff.
What the past few postseasons have proven is that, no matter how much some people might want to argue otherwise, the starting pitcher is still the most important player on the team. GMs and managers know that. Did the Astros need Greinke? No. But they went and got him anyway to make their strength that much stronger. Meanwhile, you've got teams desperate for starting pitching while Houston is stockpiling it. Do you think that's a coincidence?
That's the whole thing about the "opener" strategy, which was started by the Rays last year and has become all the rage across the Majors. It's not as simple as I'm about to make it sound, but teams don't use "openers" because they don't value starting pitching. They use them because they do. And they either don't have a starter that day or, more likely, don't have one good enough.
It's true that there are only so many worthwhile starting pitchers in the Majors these days. Which is a symptom of the modern game and its overemphasis on eight-man bullpens (another reason teams use "openers") filled with power arm after power arm. Managers are scared to let starters go beyond six innings and/or, God forbid, face the lineup a third time. Which makes the guys who can do that, guys like Scherzer or Verlander, an even more valuable commodity.
One of the articles I read today previewing the series hit the nail right on the head. It basically said "develop hitting, sign pitching." That's exactly what the Astros have done. Altuve, Bregman, Springer and Correa were all drafted by Houston. Verlander, Cole and Greinke were all acquired via trade. With the exception of Strasburg, it's the same thing in Washington. Scherzer and Corbin were both free agents. But most of their position players (Anthony Rendon, Juan Soto, Trea Turner, even going all the way back to the original National, Ryan Zimmerman) are home grown.
Of course, they also both benefited from hitting on some high draft picks. The Nationals finished last in five of their first six years after moving from Montreal (and were second-to-last the other time). And they had those back-to-back 100-loss seasons that resulted in back-to-back No. 1 picks...which they turned into Stephen Strasburg and the since departed Bryce Harper. In the last eight years, they've finished either first or second every year, made the playoffs five times, and won the first pennant in franchise history.
Houston's path was similar. All of this was well-documented during their 2017 World Series run, but the Astros tore it down completely. They lost at least 106 games in three consecutive seasons. It yielded them a No. 1 overall pick (Correa) and a No. 2 (Bregman). Now they've won 100 in three straight years and are in the World Series for the second time in three seasons, with an ALCS loss in between. Clearly what they've both done has worked, which gives hope to fans of the teams currently committed to similar tank jobs.
For both teams, though, it's all about the pitching. Because their turnarounds didn't take off until they got the starting pitching to go with the offense. And it's starting pitching. You have all these teams putting this huge emphasis on their bullpens, yet that's arguably the weakness for both World Series participants. (The bullpen, or lack thereof, was usually cited as the reason why the Nationals could never get past the Division Series until this year.) It's not like they have bad bullpens, either. And the fact that they don't overuse them makes those bullpens stronger. (You can ask the Yankees about bullpen overuse, too.)
So, basically, this series is going to come down to the starters. Specifically which team's offense is able to get to the other's starters. Because A.J. Hinch and Dave Martinez are both expecting to get a lot innings out of their horses. And runs are going to be at a premium.
By winning Game 6 against the Yankees, the Astros were able to set up their pitching the way they wanted, too. Because instead of Game 7, Cole can pitch Game 1, where he'll go against Scherzer. Then it's Verlander vs. Strasburg in Game 2 (which it would've been anyway). Greinke goes in Game 3 for Houston, while Washington hasn't named a starter (presumably because Corbin is a bullpen option in Games 1 & 2). Either way, it's Corbin and Anibal Sanchez in DC. Anibal Sanchez, who nearly threw a no-hitter in Game 1 of the NLCS is the Nationals' No. 4 starter!
Based on their body of work, the Astros deserve to be the favorites. And the Nationals have to overcome the long layoff, which hasn't worked out well for recent pennant winners who've had a similar break. I do think Houston will win the series. The pitching is a wash, but the Astros have a deeper lineup. So, for all the talk of the pitching, that'll be the difference. Astros in six.
Sunday, October 20, 2019
NFL 100: Week 7
If I've learned anything about the NFL this season, it's that I have no idea who's actually good. Every time I think I've got a team figured out, they go and surprise me one way or the other. I don't know if it's injuries or parity or what, but a lot of teams that should be good are struggling and a lot of teams that weren't expected to contend are right smack in the middle of the playoff race.
Maybe it's the fact that so many quarterbacks are injured, but it's crazy how many offenses have had trouble even putting points on the board! Are the defenses just that much better? That would explain why the only remaining undefeated teams are San Francisco and New England. The Patriots are undefeated. Evidently, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thursday Night: Kansas City (Win)
Rams (3-3) at Falcons (1-5): Rams-Is it too early for the Falcons to throw in the towel and call it a season? Either way, I think Dan Quinn's job is probably in jeopardy. As for the Rams, what happened to them? They've lost three straight and were held to just seven points last week. They look more like the team that played in the Super Bowl than the one that got there. So something's gotta give. I just have no confidence in Atlanta's ability to stop anybody. Not after they gave up a combined 87 points to the Texans and Cardinals.
Jaguars (2-4) at Bengals (0-6): Cincinnati-And then there were two. After the Jets' shocking victory over the Cowboys last week, Cincinnati is Miami's lone winless buddy. The Bengals at least try to win, though. And they're on the verge. Playing Jacksonville at home may just be the recipe to finally get them in the win column.
Vikings (4-2) at Lions (2-2-1): Detroit-Every division game in the NFC North is going to be a battle. It always is. But that's especially the case this season, where all four of them can be seen as legitimate playoff contenders. Minnesota really needs a victory if they want to keep up. They're undefeated outside the division and winless in it. That's a bad trend that can't continue if they plan on playing in January. Sadly, I think it does continue...at least for one more week.
Raiders (3-2) at Packers (5-1): Green Bay-For the Packers, a healthy Aaron Rodgers makes all the difference. He wasn't healthy last year and we saw what happened. He is healthy this season, and he authored one of his signature comebacks last week. The Raiders have proven to be a formidable opponent in year two of Gruden Era 2.0, but they're not on the same level as the teams Green Bay has already beaten this season. And next week, they've got a heavyweight Sunday night matchup with Kansas City.
Texans (4-2) at Colts (3-2): Houston-They're on Cloud 9 in Houston after the Astros' victory last night. Plus, the Rockets' season starts this week, and the Texans are in first place. Their lead is only a half-game, though, and the Colts are always a tough matchup. They both have to be feeling good about themselves, having both beaten Kansas City in their last game. So, this battle for first place should be a good one. I have a feeling the Texans will take it, though.
Cardinals (2-3-1) at Giants (2-4): Giants-Two wins, followed by two losses to start the Daniel Jones Era. Which I think shows that the Giants are still a work in progress. However, they're better than Arizona AND Saquon Barkley is back this week, making the offense much more balanced. And with the Eagles playing the Cowboys, a win here puts them just one game out of first place. They probably won't make the playoffs (or be in contention), but there's definitely a reason for optimism.
49ers (5-0) at Redskins (1-5): San Francisco-It's probably time to start thinking about San Francisco as one of the league's elite teams. Yes, they're undefeated. But they hadn't played any of the top teams until last week...when they went into the LA Coliseum and completely dominated the Rams! This defense is legit! The Redskins certainly won't present them with much of a challenge. They'll stay undefeated at least another week.
Chargers (2-4) at Titans (2-4): Tennessee-We've officially reached must-win territory for a Chargers team that has no more margin for error. Simply put, this isn't the same team that looked like a legitimate Super Bowl contender entering the season. The Titans, meanwhile, are trying to inject some life into their moribund offense that has scored a grand total of 24 points in the last four games. Hence the QB switch to Ryan Tannehill. I think that makes a difference and Tennessee actually gets a win.
Saints (5-1) at Bears (3-2): New Orleans-What's the mark of a good team? Even when their offense struggles, they find a way to win. The Saints did it against Dallas, when four field goals were enough for a 12-10 victory, and they did it last week in Jacksonville. One touchdown was enough to win 13-6. Obviously the defense has a lot to do with that, too, but you can't discount that New Orleans is getting it done without Drew Brees. Expect that defense to work its magic again this week, as they win another low-scoring affair.
Ravens (4-2) at Seahawks (5-1): Seattle-In a season where it looked like the AFC North was going to be up for grabs, the Ravens are on the verge of running away with it (which is certainly helped by the fact that the other three are struggling). Seattle, meanwhile, needs to keep winning just to keep pace with San Francisco. I'm not expecting a lot of points with these two defenses going at it. But the Seahawks usually win when they're at home, so why bet against that?
Eagles (3-3) at Cowboys (3-3): Philadelphia-Jerry Jones is blaming everybody BUT Jason Garrett for the Cowboys' three-game losing streak. The simple answer might be that Dallas just isn't as good as that 3-0 start indicated. Either way, they now find themselves tied for first place heading into a Sunday night showdown with Philadelphia. And, for the Eagles, this might be the perfect time for that matchup. Because they're the better team right now.
Patriots (6-0) at Jets (1-4): New England-The Jets are a different team with Sam Darnold under center. That's one of the main reasons why they beat the Cowboys, and it's why they actually have a chance against the Patriots. This is the Jets team that most people were expecting at the start of the season. Problem is, this is also the Patriots team people were expecting at the start of the season. New England will be 7-0.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 6-8
Overall: 51-41-1
Maybe it's the fact that so many quarterbacks are injured, but it's crazy how many offenses have had trouble even putting points on the board! Are the defenses just that much better? That would explain why the only remaining undefeated teams are San Francisco and New England. The Patriots are undefeated. Evidently, the more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thursday Night: Kansas City (Win)
Rams (3-3) at Falcons (1-5): Rams-Is it too early for the Falcons to throw in the towel and call it a season? Either way, I think Dan Quinn's job is probably in jeopardy. As for the Rams, what happened to them? They've lost three straight and were held to just seven points last week. They look more like the team that played in the Super Bowl than the one that got there. So something's gotta give. I just have no confidence in Atlanta's ability to stop anybody. Not after they gave up a combined 87 points to the Texans and Cardinals.
Jaguars (2-4) at Bengals (0-6): Cincinnati-And then there were two. After the Jets' shocking victory over the Cowboys last week, Cincinnati is Miami's lone winless buddy. The Bengals at least try to win, though. And they're on the verge. Playing Jacksonville at home may just be the recipe to finally get them in the win column.
Vikings (4-2) at Lions (2-2-1): Detroit-Every division game in the NFC North is going to be a battle. It always is. But that's especially the case this season, where all four of them can be seen as legitimate playoff contenders. Minnesota really needs a victory if they want to keep up. They're undefeated outside the division and winless in it. That's a bad trend that can't continue if they plan on playing in January. Sadly, I think it does continue...at least for one more week.
Raiders (3-2) at Packers (5-1): Green Bay-For the Packers, a healthy Aaron Rodgers makes all the difference. He wasn't healthy last year and we saw what happened. He is healthy this season, and he authored one of his signature comebacks last week. The Raiders have proven to be a formidable opponent in year two of Gruden Era 2.0, but they're not on the same level as the teams Green Bay has already beaten this season. And next week, they've got a heavyweight Sunday night matchup with Kansas City.
Texans (4-2) at Colts (3-2): Houston-They're on Cloud 9 in Houston after the Astros' victory last night. Plus, the Rockets' season starts this week, and the Texans are in first place. Their lead is only a half-game, though, and the Colts are always a tough matchup. They both have to be feeling good about themselves, having both beaten Kansas City in their last game. So, this battle for first place should be a good one. I have a feeling the Texans will take it, though.
Cardinals (2-3-1) at Giants (2-4): Giants-Two wins, followed by two losses to start the Daniel Jones Era. Which I think shows that the Giants are still a work in progress. However, they're better than Arizona AND Saquon Barkley is back this week, making the offense much more balanced. And with the Eagles playing the Cowboys, a win here puts them just one game out of first place. They probably won't make the playoffs (or be in contention), but there's definitely a reason for optimism.
49ers (5-0) at Redskins (1-5): San Francisco-It's probably time to start thinking about San Francisco as one of the league's elite teams. Yes, they're undefeated. But they hadn't played any of the top teams until last week...when they went into the LA Coliseum and completely dominated the Rams! This defense is legit! The Redskins certainly won't present them with much of a challenge. They'll stay undefeated at least another week.
Chargers (2-4) at Titans (2-4): Tennessee-We've officially reached must-win territory for a Chargers team that has no more margin for error. Simply put, this isn't the same team that looked like a legitimate Super Bowl contender entering the season. The Titans, meanwhile, are trying to inject some life into their moribund offense that has scored a grand total of 24 points in the last four games. Hence the QB switch to Ryan Tannehill. I think that makes a difference and Tennessee actually gets a win.
Saints (5-1) at Bears (3-2): New Orleans-What's the mark of a good team? Even when their offense struggles, they find a way to win. The Saints did it against Dallas, when four field goals were enough for a 12-10 victory, and they did it last week in Jacksonville. One touchdown was enough to win 13-6. Obviously the defense has a lot to do with that, too, but you can't discount that New Orleans is getting it done without Drew Brees. Expect that defense to work its magic again this week, as they win another low-scoring affair.
Ravens (4-2) at Seahawks (5-1): Seattle-In a season where it looked like the AFC North was going to be up for grabs, the Ravens are on the verge of running away with it (which is certainly helped by the fact that the other three are struggling). Seattle, meanwhile, needs to keep winning just to keep pace with San Francisco. I'm not expecting a lot of points with these two defenses going at it. But the Seahawks usually win when they're at home, so why bet against that?
Eagles (3-3) at Cowboys (3-3): Philadelphia-Jerry Jones is blaming everybody BUT Jason Garrett for the Cowboys' three-game losing streak. The simple answer might be that Dallas just isn't as good as that 3-0 start indicated. Either way, they now find themselves tied for first place heading into a Sunday night showdown with Philadelphia. And, for the Eagles, this might be the perfect time for that matchup. Because they're the better team right now.
Patriots (6-0) at Jets (1-4): New England-The Jets are a different team with Sam Darnold under center. That's one of the main reasons why they beat the Cowboys, and it's why they actually have a chance against the Patriots. This is the Jets team that most people were expecting at the start of the season. Problem is, this is also the Patriots team people were expecting at the start of the season. New England will be 7-0.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 6-8
Overall: 51-41-1
Friday, October 18, 2019
Top 10 World Series Games of the 2010s
When the 2010s started, the Yankees were the defending champions, the Giants hadn't won a World Series since they played in New York, and the Cubs hadn't won one in more than a century. The Astros were on the verge of three straight 100-loss seasons, the Phillies were the best team in the National League, and the Rangers had never been to the World Series. There was only one wild card in each league, and it had been a long time since a number of Major League cities (Pittsburgh, Kansas City, Toronto, Baltimore) had seen playoff baseball. And there hadn't been a World Series game in the Nation's Capital since 1933.
Now, as we get set for the final World Series of the decade next week, the Nationals are set to make their World Series debut and the Yankees are looking at going an entire decade without a World Series appearance for the first time since the 1910s. The Giants have three titles (all of which came in a five-year span), with one of those championship runs starting with a win in the Wild Card Game. The Cubs' drought is over, and Houston has the makings of a dynasty. The Rangers went to the World Series not once, but twice!, and the Royals also played in consecutive World Series (and won a title!).
We've seen some incredible moments over the past nine Octobers. There have been some incredible World Series, too. After three sweeps and only two seven-game series in the 2000s, we've had four seven-gamers and only one sweep (the Giants over the Tigers in 2012) over the last decade.
Entering this year's Fall Classic, there have been 53 World Series games played in the 2010s. Which of those are the best? Well, that's a completely subjective exercise (Cubs fans will certainly rank Game 7 in 2016 as their No. 1, while Royals fans probably enjoyed Game 5 of 2015 a little bit more than they did Game 7 a year earlier). So, with full awareness that the Nationals and either Astros or Yankees can alter these rankings next week, here's my list of the Top 10 World Series games of the 2010s.
10. 2012 Game 4 (Giants 4, Tigers 3): I debated a few choices for this one, but I decided to go with San Francisco's second clincher. The Giants took a 3-2 lead on Buster Posey's two-run homer in the sixth before Detroit tied it in the bottom half of the inning. San Francisco scored a run in the top of the 10th, then Sergio Romo struck out the side to end the series.
9. 2013 Game 3 (Cardinals 5, Red Sox 4): This is the game where the term "obstruction" entered our collective baseball vocabulary. It was 4-4 in the bottom of the ninth when St. Louis put runners on second and third with one out. The Red Sox got Yadi Molina trying to score on a grounder to second, but the throw back to third was wide, Allen Craig tripped over Boston third baseman Willie Middlebrooks' legs, got up, and was tagged out at home. The umpires ruled obstruction on Middlebrooks and counted the run, giving the Cardinals a 2-1 series lead. That would, of course, turn out to be their final win of the series, as the Red Sox took the next three and the title.
8. 2015 Game 1 (Royals 5, Mets 4): Alcides Escobar hit an inside-the-park homer on Matt Harvey's first pitch in the bottom of the first. Alex Gordon then hit one off Jeurys Familia in the bottom of the ninth to tie it at 4-4. And they played on and on into the night. Finally, after five-plus hours, Escobar scored the game-winning run on Eric Hosmer's sac fly in the bottom of the 14th.
7. 2018 Game 5 (Dodgers 3, Red Sox 2): That Royals-Mets contest held the record for the longest World Series games in terms of innings until that 18-inning epic last year at Dodger Stadium. At seven hours, 20 minutes, the game was longer than the entire 1939 World Series. Of the 50 players on both rosters, 46 played. Both teams were out of position players, so Clayton Kershaw pinch hit. Nathan Eovaldi threw six innings of relief for Boston. Max Muncy finally ended the marathon with a leadoff homer in the bottom of the 18th. The Red Sox, again, would get the last laugh, winning the next two games to clinch the series.
6. 2015 Game 5 (Royals 7, Mets 2): How different would things have been if Matt Harvey hadn't talked his way into coming back out for the ninth? The Mets were up 2-0 and he had thrown eight shutout innings. After a walk and an RBI double, Terry Collins replaced Harvey with Jeurys Familia. Kansas City then tied it on a Lucas Duda error, resulting in Familia's third blown save of the series (the second of which wasn't his fault). The Royals broke it open with a five-spot in the 12th, giving them their first championship in 30 years. (Fun fact: this was the first-ever all-expansion World Series...it's looking like the second will be next week, and both would be 1962 vs. 1969.)
5. 2017 Game 2 (Astros 7, Dodgers 6): It tells you all you need to know about the 2017 World Series that Game 2 was only the second-best game of the series! Houston tied it at 3-3 on Marwin Gonzalez's homer off Kenley Jansen in the ninth. The Astros hit two homers in the top of the 10th, only for the Dodgers to score twice in the bottom of the 10th. George Springer then hit a two-run bomb in the 11th. The Dodgers' Charlie Culberson hit one in the bottom of the 11th, but that was it, as Houston tied the series. More to come from this one.
4. 2014 Game 7 (Giants 3, Royals 2): Aka, the Madison Bumgarner Game. San Francisco took a 3-2 lead on Michael Morse's RBI single in the fourth. Then, in the fifth, they turned to Bumgarner on two days' rest, and all he did was retire 14 straight Royals after giving up a leadoff single. With the tying run on third and two out in the bottom of the ninth, he got Salvador Perez to hit a popup behind third, thus cementing the Legend of Madison Bumgarner.
3. 2011 Game 6 (Cardinals 10, Rangers 9): Before the Legend of Madison Bumgarner, there was the Legend of David Freese. The Cardinals were down to their last strike in the bottom of the ninth when Freese's two-run triple tied the game at 7-7. Texas was again one strike from winning the series in the bottom of the 10th, when Lance Berkman ripped an RBI single to tie it at 9-9. The, in the bottom of the 11th, Freese led off with a walk-off homer, forcing the first World Series Game 7 in nine years.
2. 2017 Game 5 (Astros 13, Dodgers 12): The only thing keeping this wild, crazy, ridiculously entertaining game out of the top spot is the fact that it wasn't a clincher. It was definitely one of the best World Series games I've ever seen, though. Kershaw and Keuchel starting...and it turns into a slugfest! Houston put up a four-spot in the fourth to tie it at 4-4, then each team hit a three-run homer in the fifth. The Astros led 12-9 in the ninth, so the Dodgers, of course, scored three runs to tie the game! After there were somehow two half-innings where zeroes were put up, Houston won it on Alex Bregman's walk-off single in the bottom of the 10th.
1. 2016 Game 7 (Cubs 8, Indians 7): After arguably the most important rain delay in Major League history, the Cubs came out, scored twice, and ended 108 years of frustration. They led 6-3 with Aroldis Chapman on the mound in the bottom of the eighth. A Brandon Guyer double and a two-run Rajai Davis homer later, the game was tied. The 17-minute rain delay came just as the game was about to enter extra innings, and Jason Heyward delivered a rousing motivational speech in the Cubs' clubhouse. It worked! They plated two runs in the top of the 10th, then, after Cleveland scored one, Mike Montgomery induced a ground ball to Kris Bryant, who threw across the diamond to Anthony Rizzo, and the moment Cubs fans had waited more than century for finally came!
Now, as we get set for the final World Series of the decade next week, the Nationals are set to make their World Series debut and the Yankees are looking at going an entire decade without a World Series appearance for the first time since the 1910s. The Giants have three titles (all of which came in a five-year span), with one of those championship runs starting with a win in the Wild Card Game. The Cubs' drought is over, and Houston has the makings of a dynasty. The Rangers went to the World Series not once, but twice!, and the Royals also played in consecutive World Series (and won a title!).
We've seen some incredible moments over the past nine Octobers. There have been some incredible World Series, too. After three sweeps and only two seven-game series in the 2000s, we've had four seven-gamers and only one sweep (the Giants over the Tigers in 2012) over the last decade.
Entering this year's Fall Classic, there have been 53 World Series games played in the 2010s. Which of those are the best? Well, that's a completely subjective exercise (Cubs fans will certainly rank Game 7 in 2016 as their No. 1, while Royals fans probably enjoyed Game 5 of 2015 a little bit more than they did Game 7 a year earlier). So, with full awareness that the Nationals and either Astros or Yankees can alter these rankings next week, here's my list of the Top 10 World Series games of the 2010s.
Tuesday, October 15, 2019
Dominant Postseason Pitching Performances
As the freight train that is the Washington Nationals marches on towards their first-ever NL pennant and the first World Series appearance for a team from the Nation's Capital in 86 years, it got me thinking about how this team is going to be scary for whichever lineup emerges from that Yankees-Astros series. And the reason why is their dominant starting pitching (which further debunks that whole mindset of modern baseball about shorter outings and a roster full of nothing but relief pitchers).
In fact, what the Nationals have done in this NLCS ranks right up there among the best postseason pitching performances by any team in history. Some teams have won championships because of the efforts of one or two pitchers (I'm looking at you, 2014 Giants), while it's been a collective effort for others. And in this NLCS, St. Louis has been completely overmatched by the trio of Anibal Sanchez, Max Scherzer and Stephen Strasburg (and, outside of 1/3 of an inning in Game 2, they haven't even seen Patrick Corbin yet!).
Regardless of how many games it takes them to clinch the pennant, the Nationals' collective pitching effort in the 2019 NLCS will go down as one of the all-time great performances by a team in a single postseason series. Here are 10 others, in no particular order.
2005 White Sox (ALCS): They lost the first game 3-2. Jose Contreras went "only" 8.1 innings. That would be the only time Ozzie Guillen went to the bullpen in the entire series. Starting with Mark Buerhle in Game 2, White Sox pitchers tossed four consecutive complete games to close out the series, as they won their first pennant since 1959.
1905 Giants (World Series): This is one of the single all-time great pitching performances by anyone, period. Over the course of six days, Hall of Famer Christy Mathewson tossed three complete game shutouts. The Giants did lose one game, when they gave up three unearned runs in Game 2. Those were the only runs they allowed in the entire series, giving them a team ERA of 0.00.
1966 Orioles (World Series): The Dodgers scored two runs in Game 1. And that was it. Baltimore's pitching staff ended the series by tossing 33 consecutive scoreless innings, including shutouts in the final three games of the sweep. Jim Palmer bested Sandy Koufax in Game 2, then they Orioles posted back-to-back 1-0 wins to close out the series.
1963 Dodgers (World Series): Sandy Koufax struck out 15 Yankees in Game 1, and that set the tone for the entire series. The Yankees scored a total of four runs in the four games, two of which were Koufax complete game victories. Don Drysdale, meanwhile, pitched a 1-0 shutout in Game 3.
1988 Dodgers (World Series): After his absurd 1988 regular season, it stands to reason that Orel Hershiser would be just as dominant in the playoffs. He shut down the Mets in the NLCS, then did the same to the A's in the World Series, being named MVP of both. Against Oakland, he pitched two complete games, a 6-0 shutout in Game 2 where he allowed just three singles, and a 5-2 win in the clinching Game 5. It was more than just Hershiser, though. If you take out Jose Canseco's grand slam in Game 1, Oakland scored just seven runs the rest of the series.
2014 Giants (World Series): Can you believe it was five years ago that we saw Madison Bumgarner single-handedly win a World Series? That's the only reason 2014 makes this list. Salvador Perez homered off Bumgarner in Game 1, and that's the only run he's ever given up in the World Series! Bumgarner won that game 7-1, pitched a four-hit shutout in Game 5, then earned a five-inning save three days later in Game 7, as the San Francisco even-year thing resulted in a third title in five seasons.
2001 Diamondbacks (World Series): When you think about it, it's remarkable that the Yankees almost won this series. They scored only 14 runs in seven games and hit under .200 for the series. This was, of course, the World Series of Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson, who combined to earn all four of Arizona's wins. Schilling started three times, while Johnson won Game 7 in relief the day after pitching seven innings in a Game 6 victory.
1968 Tigers (World Series): In the "Year of the Pitcher," it only stands to reason that pitchers would dominate the World Series. Two pitchers actually. The Cardinals' Bob Gibson and the Tigers' Mickey Lolich. They were both 2-0 in the series when they went against each other in Game 7. Detroit won 4-1, giving Lolich his third complete-game victory of the series. Oh, yeah, and he started Game 7 on two-days' rest. Gibson, meanwhile, had 35 strikeouts in the series.
2012 Tigers (ALCS): Outside of a four-run bottom of the ninth in Game 1 (while trailing 4-0), the Yankees only scored two runs over the remaining 38 innings. They hit just .157 in the series and struck out a lot. Detroit's starters in the final three games: Anibal Sanchez, Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer. Those names sure sound familiar, don't they? (Fun fact: I was at Game 2, which is still the only ALCS or World Series game I've ever attended.)
2010 Phillies (NLDS): Remember when the Phillies were the best team in the National League for that three-year stretch? In 2010, they were the two-time defending NL champions and entered the playoffs as the No. 1 seed. And all that happened in Game 1 was Roy Halladay throwing a no-hitter. Cole Hamels pitched a shutout of his own in Game 3. The Reds did manage four runs in Game 2, the only ones they scored in the series.
That's just a sampling of the great pitching performances we've seen throughout MLB playoff history. There are plenty more that could've been included, too. And the Nationals' combined efforts in the 2019 NLCS is among them. As it turns out, there is value in having ridiculously good starting pitching after all.
In fact, what the Nationals have done in this NLCS ranks right up there among the best postseason pitching performances by any team in history. Some teams have won championships because of the efforts of one or two pitchers (I'm looking at you, 2014 Giants), while it's been a collective effort for others. And in this NLCS, St. Louis has been completely overmatched by the trio of Anibal Sanchez, Max Scherzer and Stephen Strasburg (and, outside of 1/3 of an inning in Game 2, they haven't even seen Patrick Corbin yet!).
Regardless of how many games it takes them to clinch the pennant, the Nationals' collective pitching effort in the 2019 NLCS will go down as one of the all-time great performances by a team in a single postseason series. Here are 10 others, in no particular order.
2005 White Sox (ALCS): They lost the first game 3-2. Jose Contreras went "only" 8.1 innings. That would be the only time Ozzie Guillen went to the bullpen in the entire series. Starting with Mark Buerhle in Game 2, White Sox pitchers tossed four consecutive complete games to close out the series, as they won their first pennant since 1959.
1905 Giants (World Series): This is one of the single all-time great pitching performances by anyone, period. Over the course of six days, Hall of Famer Christy Mathewson tossed three complete game shutouts. The Giants did lose one game, when they gave up three unearned runs in Game 2. Those were the only runs they allowed in the entire series, giving them a team ERA of 0.00.
1966 Orioles (World Series): The Dodgers scored two runs in Game 1. And that was it. Baltimore's pitching staff ended the series by tossing 33 consecutive scoreless innings, including shutouts in the final three games of the sweep. Jim Palmer bested Sandy Koufax in Game 2, then they Orioles posted back-to-back 1-0 wins to close out the series.
1963 Dodgers (World Series): Sandy Koufax struck out 15 Yankees in Game 1, and that set the tone for the entire series. The Yankees scored a total of four runs in the four games, two of which were Koufax complete game victories. Don Drysdale, meanwhile, pitched a 1-0 shutout in Game 3.
1988 Dodgers (World Series): After his absurd 1988 regular season, it stands to reason that Orel Hershiser would be just as dominant in the playoffs. He shut down the Mets in the NLCS, then did the same to the A's in the World Series, being named MVP of both. Against Oakland, he pitched two complete games, a 6-0 shutout in Game 2 where he allowed just three singles, and a 5-2 win in the clinching Game 5. It was more than just Hershiser, though. If you take out Jose Canseco's grand slam in Game 1, Oakland scored just seven runs the rest of the series.
2014 Giants (World Series): Can you believe it was five years ago that we saw Madison Bumgarner single-handedly win a World Series? That's the only reason 2014 makes this list. Salvador Perez homered off Bumgarner in Game 1, and that's the only run he's ever given up in the World Series! Bumgarner won that game 7-1, pitched a four-hit shutout in Game 5, then earned a five-inning save three days later in Game 7, as the San Francisco even-year thing resulted in a third title in five seasons.
2001 Diamondbacks (World Series): When you think about it, it's remarkable that the Yankees almost won this series. They scored only 14 runs in seven games and hit under .200 for the series. This was, of course, the World Series of Curt Schilling and Randy Johnson, who combined to earn all four of Arizona's wins. Schilling started three times, while Johnson won Game 7 in relief the day after pitching seven innings in a Game 6 victory.
1968 Tigers (World Series): In the "Year of the Pitcher," it only stands to reason that pitchers would dominate the World Series. Two pitchers actually. The Cardinals' Bob Gibson and the Tigers' Mickey Lolich. They were both 2-0 in the series when they went against each other in Game 7. Detroit won 4-1, giving Lolich his third complete-game victory of the series. Oh, yeah, and he started Game 7 on two-days' rest. Gibson, meanwhile, had 35 strikeouts in the series.
2012 Tigers (ALCS): Outside of a four-run bottom of the ninth in Game 1 (while trailing 4-0), the Yankees only scored two runs over the remaining 38 innings. They hit just .157 in the series and struck out a lot. Detroit's starters in the final three games: Anibal Sanchez, Justin Verlander and Max Scherzer. Those names sure sound familiar, don't they? (Fun fact: I was at Game 2, which is still the only ALCS or World Series game I've ever attended.)
2010 Phillies (NLDS): Remember when the Phillies were the best team in the National League for that three-year stretch? In 2010, they were the two-time defending NL champions and entered the playoffs as the No. 1 seed. And all that happened in Game 1 was Roy Halladay throwing a no-hitter. Cole Hamels pitched a shutout of his own in Game 3. The Reds did manage four runs in Game 2, the only ones they scored in the series.
That's just a sampling of the great pitching performances we've seen throughout MLB playoff history. There are plenty more that could've been included, too. And the Nationals' combined efforts in the 2019 NLCS is among them. As it turns out, there is value in having ridiculously good starting pitching after all.
Monday, October 14, 2019
Time For Rugby World Cup Expansion
The United States saw its run at the 2019 Rugby World Cup come to an end on Sunday morning with a loss to Tonga. The USA Eagles went 0-4 at the tournament, but, unlike the U.S. national team in another sport last summer, at least they were there. And, frankly, it would've been shocking if they had managed to pick up a win, seeing as their first two games were against powerhouses England and France.
Argentina, another strong rugby nation, was also in the USA's group. But, because they also had to face England and France, the best they could realistically hope for was third place in the group, which earned them a guaranteed place in the 2023 World Cup. That's literally all third place gets you. Because there are only 20 teams, so they go right to the quarterfinals after group play ends.
When the Rugby World Cup started in 1987, it was a 16-team tournament. It remained that way for the first three tournaments until it was expanded to 20 teams in 1999. It's been 20 teams ever since, 12 of which automatically qualify based on their performance at the previous edition.
Although, frankly, 20 teams creates a very awkward setup. There are four groups of five teams, which means every team plays four games (many of which are not competitive) and group play takes forever. It also means that, since you have an odd number of teams in each group, you have nations with huge breaks between games, as well as matchups between teams with ridiculously uneven amounts of rest.
There's a very simple solution to those two problems, and it's one that seems long overdue. They should expand the tournament to 24 teams and go to six groups of four. There are currently 105 teams in the World Rugby rankings. Adding four more of them to the World Cup won't dilute the quality of play. Frankly, I think it would enhance it.
Right now, you have two of the powerhouse teams in every group, but you also have two weaker teams (the eight non-automatic qualifiers). So, that means you've essentially got four guaranteed blowouts in each group, with that team in the middle hoping to maybe pull an upset against one of those top two. But, if you expand to 24 teams, you don't have groups of five, so you'll be able to separate the top teams (as well as the weaker teams), making the groups more competitive across the board.
It also takes away that issue of long breaks, something that's unavoidable with an odd number. With only four teams, though, you can have both games in the group on the same day or, at worst, in consecutive days. That puts both teams on equal rest entering games. It also means that they'd be able to have a game everyday during group play. (There were a number of off days during group play this year.)
Adding four teams would also mean the addition of a round of 16, which gives the third-place teams something to play for beyond guaranteed entry into the next edition of the tournament. Those bonus points, which a team gets for scoring four tries or losing by seven points or less, will suddenly matter a lot more. And, replacing a group game with an elimination game would give those teams more of a chance to actually make some noise.
Think about it: Argentina, Scotland, Italy and Fiji are the four teams that finished third in their groups this year. They'd all be scary to face in an elimination game. But none will get the chance. Because all of their tournaments are done.
Those mid-level countries are the ones that would really benefit from a tournament expansion. In two respects. First, they'd end up getting better seeds, and thus not have to face two of the powerhouses in group play. Second, the round of 16 still gives them an opportunity to advance even if they do end up in a tough group. It also gives some hope to those nations from 13-16, the ones who currently know that, at best, they're only going to win one game.
For the top teams, meanwhile, not much would be different. They'd only get to beat up on one team instead of two and they'd be swapping a group play game for a round of 16 knockout game. But the total number of games required to win the tournament (7) would stay the same.
Financially it would be a win-win, too. Those four additional teams would increase the number of scheduled games from 48 to 52, which doesn't require an extra stadium or put too much of an extra burden on the host cities. What it would do, however, is bring give the TV partners four more games to broadcast, resulting in increased rights fees. Not to mention the additional revenue that would be generated by the fans of those four countries now attending the tournament.
Competitively, I think it's a no-brainer, too. Adding the teams ranked 21st-24th wouldn't dilute the quality of play. In fact, it would make for a more competitive tournament from top-to-bottom, since the teams will be distributed more evenly. You wouldn't have the groups with two good and two bad teams! And, by having only three group games instead of four, that puts more value on each one.
Having more teams in the World Cup will only help the sport grow, too. Rugby is religion in countries like New Zealand and Australia and England. It always will be. That's how the legend of the All Blacks and the Wallabies grew. But for rugby to reach the same level of worldwide popularity as soccer or basketball, it needs to reach beyond that core base. And, the other countries will eventually need to feel like they actually have a chance against those top nations. The only way they'll know what it takes to reach that level is to be exposed to it.
Look at how much rugby 7's has taken off over the past few years since it was added to the Olympic program in Rio. Yes, rugby 7's and rugby 15's are completely different games. But so many more people from so many different countries have been exposed to rugby because of the Olympics. Expanding the World Cup would have a similar effect. It would give more people a reason to care about the World Cup.
Expanding the Rugby World Cup to 24 teams makes too much sense on too many levels to not happen. They're saying it might for the 2023 tournament, which will be held on the 200th anniversary of rugby's invention. There's no more appropriate time to do it. Because I can't think of a better way to celebrate.
Argentina, another strong rugby nation, was also in the USA's group. But, because they also had to face England and France, the best they could realistically hope for was third place in the group, which earned them a guaranteed place in the 2023 World Cup. That's literally all third place gets you. Because there are only 20 teams, so they go right to the quarterfinals after group play ends.
When the Rugby World Cup started in 1987, it was a 16-team tournament. It remained that way for the first three tournaments until it was expanded to 20 teams in 1999. It's been 20 teams ever since, 12 of which automatically qualify based on their performance at the previous edition.
Although, frankly, 20 teams creates a very awkward setup. There are four groups of five teams, which means every team plays four games (many of which are not competitive) and group play takes forever. It also means that, since you have an odd number of teams in each group, you have nations with huge breaks between games, as well as matchups between teams with ridiculously uneven amounts of rest.
There's a very simple solution to those two problems, and it's one that seems long overdue. They should expand the tournament to 24 teams and go to six groups of four. There are currently 105 teams in the World Rugby rankings. Adding four more of them to the World Cup won't dilute the quality of play. Frankly, I think it would enhance it.
Right now, you have two of the powerhouse teams in every group, but you also have two weaker teams (the eight non-automatic qualifiers). So, that means you've essentially got four guaranteed blowouts in each group, with that team in the middle hoping to maybe pull an upset against one of those top two. But, if you expand to 24 teams, you don't have groups of five, so you'll be able to separate the top teams (as well as the weaker teams), making the groups more competitive across the board.
It also takes away that issue of long breaks, something that's unavoidable with an odd number. With only four teams, though, you can have both games in the group on the same day or, at worst, in consecutive days. That puts both teams on equal rest entering games. It also means that they'd be able to have a game everyday during group play. (There were a number of off days during group play this year.)
Adding four teams would also mean the addition of a round of 16, which gives the third-place teams something to play for beyond guaranteed entry into the next edition of the tournament. Those bonus points, which a team gets for scoring four tries or losing by seven points or less, will suddenly matter a lot more. And, replacing a group game with an elimination game would give those teams more of a chance to actually make some noise.
Think about it: Argentina, Scotland, Italy and Fiji are the four teams that finished third in their groups this year. They'd all be scary to face in an elimination game. But none will get the chance. Because all of their tournaments are done.
Those mid-level countries are the ones that would really benefit from a tournament expansion. In two respects. First, they'd end up getting better seeds, and thus not have to face two of the powerhouses in group play. Second, the round of 16 still gives them an opportunity to advance even if they do end up in a tough group. It also gives some hope to those nations from 13-16, the ones who currently know that, at best, they're only going to win one game.
For the top teams, meanwhile, not much would be different. They'd only get to beat up on one team instead of two and they'd be swapping a group play game for a round of 16 knockout game. But the total number of games required to win the tournament (7) would stay the same.
Financially it would be a win-win, too. Those four additional teams would increase the number of scheduled games from 48 to 52, which doesn't require an extra stadium or put too much of an extra burden on the host cities. What it would do, however, is bring give the TV partners four more games to broadcast, resulting in increased rights fees. Not to mention the additional revenue that would be generated by the fans of those four countries now attending the tournament.
Competitively, I think it's a no-brainer, too. Adding the teams ranked 21st-24th wouldn't dilute the quality of play. In fact, it would make for a more competitive tournament from top-to-bottom, since the teams will be distributed more evenly. You wouldn't have the groups with two good and two bad teams! And, by having only three group games instead of four, that puts more value on each one.
Having more teams in the World Cup will only help the sport grow, too. Rugby is religion in countries like New Zealand and Australia and England. It always will be. That's how the legend of the All Blacks and the Wallabies grew. But for rugby to reach the same level of worldwide popularity as soccer or basketball, it needs to reach beyond that core base. And, the other countries will eventually need to feel like they actually have a chance against those top nations. The only way they'll know what it takes to reach that level is to be exposed to it.
Look at how much rugby 7's has taken off over the past few years since it was added to the Olympic program in Rio. Yes, rugby 7's and rugby 15's are completely different games. But so many more people from so many different countries have been exposed to rugby because of the Olympics. Expanding the World Cup would have a similar effect. It would give more people a reason to care about the World Cup.
Expanding the Rugby World Cup to 24 teams makes too much sense on too many levels to not happen. They're saying it might for the 2023 tournament, which will be held on the 200th anniversary of rugby's invention. There's no more appropriate time to do it. Because I can't think of a better way to celebrate.
Sunday, October 13, 2019
NFL 100: Week 6
This is a very strange week in the NFL. We're a third of the way through the season, yet the standings are a jumbled mess. Nobody has separated themselves, and a lot of teams think they still have a chance of doing something significant this season. Yet it also feels very lifeless. Maybe it's the Washington-Miami and Atlanta-Arizona games that are just sucking the life out of everything. Or maybe it's because neither New York team is playing an early game. That's really throwing me off, too.
Thursday Night: New England (Win)
Panthers (3-2) vs. Buccaneers (2-3): Tampa Bay-The Panthers and Bucs will make history during their London game. They'll be the first teams in NFL history to have two games shown exclusively on NFL Network in the same season! (Their Week 2 matchup in Charlotte was a Thursday night game.) Of course, that doesn't really mean much since most people get NFL Network. I just find it odd that the NFL would choose to put both matchups between division rivals on cable only. Anyway, this is essentially a home game for the Bucs (who are technically the "home" team), whose owner also owns Manchester United. So, they'll have the fan support as they complete their season sweep of the Panthers.
Seahawks (4-1) at Browns (2-3): Seattle-Cleveland is actually playing on a Sunday afternoon?! What's going on?! I'm almost imperative for the Browns to win this one with New England coming up after their bye, but Seattle won't make it easy. Neither will the short week. Especially since the Seahawks have extra rest after their Thursday night game. Cleveland will be happy when they finally stop playing NFC West teams. Because the Rams, 49ers and Seahawks will have accounted for three of their four losses.
Texans (3-2) at Chiefs (4-1): Kansas City-I'm not sure which was more surprising last week against the Colts--that the Chiefs lost (at home!) or that their offense was held to just 13 points. Now they face the Texans and their defense, which makes you think points will be hard to come by again. Regardless, I think last week was more a blip on the radar than anything else. It'll be competitive, but the Chiefs get back to their winning ways.
Redskins (0-5) at Dolphins (0-4): Miami-Tickets for this game are going for just $30 on StubHub. I'm not sure I'd want to pay that much. But fans of both these teams know there's a realistic chance they actually might not lose this week. Which is something they won't be able to say very often this season. There are other bad teams with terrible records, so I can't say for sure this one's for the No. 1 pick. But these are the two worst teams in the league. We'll get to see which one is less bad this week.
Eagles (3-2) at Vikings (3-2): Philadelphia-Both teams are 3-2, yet those records seem completely different. The Eagles are tied for first. The Vikings are tied for last. Their problem has been their own division, though. In their three games against non-NFC North opponents, they're 3-0, including a very complete performance against the Giants last week. Philadelphia had an even more complete performance against New York's other team. They're starting to find their groove. And we'll see how the Vikings do after all those comments about Case Keenum earlier in the week.
Saints (4-1) at Jaguars (2-3): New Orleans-They may not have the best record in the conference, but I still say the Saints are the best team in the NFC. And they've been proving that they're more than just Drew Brees, picking up wins over Seattle and Dallas without him. Last week was much more straightforward against Tampa Bay. This one should be straightforward, too. The Jaguars just aren't at the same level.
Bengals (0-5) at Ravens (3-2): Baltimore-All credit to Baltimore for taking advantage of a down year in the AFC North. As long as the Ravens win their division games, they've got a good shot at hosting a playoff game. And Cincinnati has done nothing to inspire confidence in their ability to win a game anytime soon. Baltimore can't lose this one at home. Not with a trip to Seattle next week, then a matchup with the Patriots after the bye.
49ers (4-0) at Rams (3-2): Rams-It sounds crazy to say it, but this is a must-win game for the Rams. They've lost two straight and suddenly find themselves in third place. And, if their losing streak reaches three, they'll be 2.5 games behind the 49ers with a loss to San Francisco. So, it's far more important for LA to get its groove back than for the 49ers to remain undefeated. The Rams have had plenty of time to fix things since that loss in Seattle. I think they right the ship and jump right back into the NFC West race.
Falcons (1-4) at Cardinals (1-3-1): Atlanta-Thankfully for the Falcons and Cardinals, there's a Redskins-Dolphins game this week. Because otherwise this would be the worst matchup of the week. I've officially given up on thinking Atlanta has any chance of being competitive in the NFC South. Not after allowing 53 points to Houston! Fortunately, Arizona's worse than they are.
Titans (2-3) at Broncos (1-4): Denver-Denver finally got its first win of the season last week against the Chargers. Now they take on a Titans team that's either really good and puts up a bunch of points or looks really bad with an anemic offense that does nothing. Which team will show up in Denver? More importantly, will the Broncos finally be able to play a whole home game instead of losing by two on a last-second field goal?
Cowboys (3-2) at Jets (0-4): Dallas-After back-to-back losses where their offense was barely present, a matchup with the Jets should be a welcome break for the Cowboys. The Jets welcome Sam Darnold back, so they should be more competitive than they were last week in Philadelphia. The result should be the same, though. This is the perfect bounce-back opportunity for Dallas heading into next week's first-place showdown with the Eagles.
Steelers (1-4) at Chargers (2-3): Chargers-Are there any two teams in the league more in need of a win than the Steelers and Chargers? This has the makings of a lost season in Pittsburgh, yet, remarkably, the Steelers are still in the thick of it in the AFC North. The Chargers, meanwhile, I don't know what's going on with them. They're too good to be 2-3! And, they're 1-2 at home, with the only win coming in overtime. So, basically, something's gotta give!
Lions (2-1-1) at Packers (4-1): Green Bay-Because of the Lions' tie (and the fact that they already had their bye), the NFC North standings are all screwed up. But, what we do know is that all four teams are over .500! Which puts extra importance on the division games. And, with a win, Green Bay would be 3-0 in division games, putting them in early control. A Detroit win, though. That would really show us that the Lions are for real and can't be taken for granted. After all, they've already won in Philadelphia and nearly beat the Chiefs.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-8
Overall: 45-33-1
Thursday Night: New England (Win)
Panthers (3-2) vs. Buccaneers (2-3): Tampa Bay-The Panthers and Bucs will make history during their London game. They'll be the first teams in NFL history to have two games shown exclusively on NFL Network in the same season! (Their Week 2 matchup in Charlotte was a Thursday night game.) Of course, that doesn't really mean much since most people get NFL Network. I just find it odd that the NFL would choose to put both matchups between division rivals on cable only. Anyway, this is essentially a home game for the Bucs (who are technically the "home" team), whose owner also owns Manchester United. So, they'll have the fan support as they complete their season sweep of the Panthers.
Seahawks (4-1) at Browns (2-3): Seattle-Cleveland is actually playing on a Sunday afternoon?! What's going on?! I'm almost imperative for the Browns to win this one with New England coming up after their bye, but Seattle won't make it easy. Neither will the short week. Especially since the Seahawks have extra rest after their Thursday night game. Cleveland will be happy when they finally stop playing NFC West teams. Because the Rams, 49ers and Seahawks will have accounted for three of their four losses.
Texans (3-2) at Chiefs (4-1): Kansas City-I'm not sure which was more surprising last week against the Colts--that the Chiefs lost (at home!) or that their offense was held to just 13 points. Now they face the Texans and their defense, which makes you think points will be hard to come by again. Regardless, I think last week was more a blip on the radar than anything else. It'll be competitive, but the Chiefs get back to their winning ways.
Redskins (0-5) at Dolphins (0-4): Miami-Tickets for this game are going for just $30 on StubHub. I'm not sure I'd want to pay that much. But fans of both these teams know there's a realistic chance they actually might not lose this week. Which is something they won't be able to say very often this season. There are other bad teams with terrible records, so I can't say for sure this one's for the No. 1 pick. But these are the two worst teams in the league. We'll get to see which one is less bad this week.
Eagles (3-2) at Vikings (3-2): Philadelphia-Both teams are 3-2, yet those records seem completely different. The Eagles are tied for first. The Vikings are tied for last. Their problem has been their own division, though. In their three games against non-NFC North opponents, they're 3-0, including a very complete performance against the Giants last week. Philadelphia had an even more complete performance against New York's other team. They're starting to find their groove. And we'll see how the Vikings do after all those comments about Case Keenum earlier in the week.
Saints (4-1) at Jaguars (2-3): New Orleans-They may not have the best record in the conference, but I still say the Saints are the best team in the NFC. And they've been proving that they're more than just Drew Brees, picking up wins over Seattle and Dallas without him. Last week was much more straightforward against Tampa Bay. This one should be straightforward, too. The Jaguars just aren't at the same level.
Bengals (0-5) at Ravens (3-2): Baltimore-All credit to Baltimore for taking advantage of a down year in the AFC North. As long as the Ravens win their division games, they've got a good shot at hosting a playoff game. And Cincinnati has done nothing to inspire confidence in their ability to win a game anytime soon. Baltimore can't lose this one at home. Not with a trip to Seattle next week, then a matchup with the Patriots after the bye.
49ers (4-0) at Rams (3-2): Rams-It sounds crazy to say it, but this is a must-win game for the Rams. They've lost two straight and suddenly find themselves in third place. And, if their losing streak reaches three, they'll be 2.5 games behind the 49ers with a loss to San Francisco. So, it's far more important for LA to get its groove back than for the 49ers to remain undefeated. The Rams have had plenty of time to fix things since that loss in Seattle. I think they right the ship and jump right back into the NFC West race.
Falcons (1-4) at Cardinals (1-3-1): Atlanta-Thankfully for the Falcons and Cardinals, there's a Redskins-Dolphins game this week. Because otherwise this would be the worst matchup of the week. I've officially given up on thinking Atlanta has any chance of being competitive in the NFC South. Not after allowing 53 points to Houston! Fortunately, Arizona's worse than they are.
Titans (2-3) at Broncos (1-4): Denver-Denver finally got its first win of the season last week against the Chargers. Now they take on a Titans team that's either really good and puts up a bunch of points or looks really bad with an anemic offense that does nothing. Which team will show up in Denver? More importantly, will the Broncos finally be able to play a whole home game instead of losing by two on a last-second field goal?
Cowboys (3-2) at Jets (0-4): Dallas-After back-to-back losses where their offense was barely present, a matchup with the Jets should be a welcome break for the Cowboys. The Jets welcome Sam Darnold back, so they should be more competitive than they were last week in Philadelphia. The result should be the same, though. This is the perfect bounce-back opportunity for Dallas heading into next week's first-place showdown with the Eagles.
Steelers (1-4) at Chargers (2-3): Chargers-Are there any two teams in the league more in need of a win than the Steelers and Chargers? This has the makings of a lost season in Pittsburgh, yet, remarkably, the Steelers are still in the thick of it in the AFC North. The Chargers, meanwhile, I don't know what's going on with them. They're too good to be 2-3! And, they're 1-2 at home, with the only win coming in overtime. So, basically, something's gotta give!
Lions (2-1-1) at Packers (4-1): Green Bay-Because of the Lions' tie (and the fact that they already had their bye), the NFC North standings are all screwed up. But, what we do know is that all four teams are over .500! Which puts extra importance on the division games. And, with a win, Green Bay would be 3-0 in division games, putting them in early control. A Detroit win, though. That would really show us that the Lions are for real and can't be taken for granted. After all, they've already won in Philadelphia and nearly beat the Chiefs.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 7-8
Overall: 45-33-1
Friday, October 11, 2019
There's Always the XFL, Colin
I'd be lying if I said I didn't see this coming. Antonio Brown was getting too much press for his antics, so Colin Kaepernick had to do something. Because Heaven forbid Colin Kaepernick not be the center of attention! (Seriously, can they both just go away?)
Since Kaepernick refuses to let it go and accept the reality that he's never going to play in the NFL again, his "team" felt the need to issue a press release entitled "Facts to Address the False Narratives Regarding Colin Kaepernick." Of course, plenty of people on social media ate it up. His supporters immediately jumped to his defense, using this as further "proof" that he's "better" than a number of backups or the replacement options teams have considered for their injured starting quarterbacks.
The "statement" starts with "For Immediate Release" as if it was coming from a news bureau, which is only the start of how ridiculous the whole thing is. You "released" it on freakin' Twitter for crying out loud! (Although, when Colin Kaepernick is involved, ridiculous is normal, so we shouldn't have really been surprised.) Then the introduction states: "There have been so many false narratives in the media regarding Colin, we believe it is important to set the record straight, again. Nothing below is up for interpretation or debate, it's the truth and nothing else."
Except their definition of "truth" is just that. An interpretation. Problem is, their interpretation isn't the only one. I always say, "Your perception is your reality," and that's exactly what Kaepernick's "statement" is. It's their perception, thus it's their reality. Not everyone shares their perception, though, so you can't classify the two pages of stats that you think are so impressive as "the truth and nothing else." Because it's completely open to interpretation.
Not to mention the fact that some of these "facts" are either one-sided or completely wrong. For starters, it talks about how he fits into most teams' "systems" because he played in the West Coast Offense under Jim Harbaugh. Jim Harbaugh is currently the head coach at the University of Michigan! They're correct in that many teams adapt their offense to their quarterback's strengths, but the next sentence completely contradicts that entire point. It states, "Colin has the same skill set as many of the young mobile quarterbacks flourishing in the NFL right now." Kaepernick is 31! That isn't young!
Next, there's the point where they offer their "proof" that he still wants to play: "He has been working out five days a week, for three years, in preparation to play again." If he wanted to play so badly, why didn't he sign with the AAF, where he would've been the league's star attraction? Ditto about the XFL. I'm sure he'd be welcome in Canada, too. This isn't about playing. It's about playing in the NFL. There are plenty of opportunities for him to play if he actually wanted to. But that doesn't fit the narrative.
My favorite part, though, was page 2 with all the stats designed to show us how awesome a quarterback he is. Except they're not nearly as impressive as they'd like us to believe. Most of the stats they site came from 2016, his last year in the NFL. He put up those numbers for a 49ers team that went 2-14, with both of their wins coming over the Rams (they went 1-10 in his 11 starts). Most of those games were not close. So it's not exactly like he was leading this offensive juggernaut that was putting up an insane amount of points week after week.
They also felt the need to include that "Despite having to recover from three surgeries during 2016, Colin immediately started once healthy and was never beaten out by any other quarterback on the roster." The other quarterbacks on the 2016 49ers were Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder, who aren't exactly Tom Brady and Drew Brees. And no one's arguing that either Gabbert or Ponder is better than Kaepernick. On a team with those three options, he should be the starter. If he'd been beaten out by either of them, they'd have absolutely no argument instead of the weak one they currently have.
Yet, despite how "great" he was in 2016, the 49ers were still planning on cutting Kaepernick. And that decision had nothing to do with his protest. The fact is that after his flash-in-the-pan 2012 season where the 49ers went to the Super Bowl, his numbers got progressively worse every year after that. So did the team's record. There were plenty of performance-related reasons for San Francisco to want to go in a different direction. But, again, that doesn't fit the narrative.
Neither does the fact that all of his playoff exploits (a 4-2 record, two NFC Championship Game appearances and a berth in Super Bowl XLVII) all took place during the 2012 and 2013 seasons. Which means that over his final four seasons in San Francisco, the 49ers not only didn't win a playoff game, they didn't even play in any. It's also conveniently omitted that the 49ers also made it to the NFC Championship Game in 2011, the year before Kaepernick became their starting quarterback, which tells me it wasn't just him. Except that doesn't fit the narrative either.
And, just in case the delusional point about his age and ability hadn't been hammered home enough in this absurd Twitter post, the conclusion reiterates it one more time: "In summary, it is difficult to think of another young player in NFL history with statistics and character as impressive as Colin's not being given an opportunity to earn a spot on an NFL roster after what he has accomplished."
First off, he isn't young. He started a Super Bowl against an opponent that has already put two players in the Hall of Fame. Second, he last threw an NFL pass in 2016. If a team, any team, wanted him, he would've had an opportunity by now. But that ship has sailed. And it's also delusional to think that after all this time, he'd simply pick up right where he left off (which wasn't as great in reality as it was in his head). You can't let that get in the way of a good narrative, though.
Bottom line, it's been three years! And we're still talking about the same damn thing! NOBODY is going to change their mind! Either people support him and his "cause" or they got tired of him and this whole ordeal a long time ago. And, quite frankly, a lot of people on both sides don't even care anymore! (Although they did successfully get me to devote another blog post to this stupid topic.)
All Kaepernick and his people are doing is beating a dead horse. And, no matter how hard you beat it, that dead horse ain't coming back to life!
Since Kaepernick refuses to let it go and accept the reality that he's never going to play in the NFL again, his "team" felt the need to issue a press release entitled "Facts to Address the False Narratives Regarding Colin Kaepernick." Of course, plenty of people on social media ate it up. His supporters immediately jumped to his defense, using this as further "proof" that he's "better" than a number of backups or the replacement options teams have considered for their injured starting quarterbacks.
The "statement" starts with "For Immediate Release" as if it was coming from a news bureau, which is only the start of how ridiculous the whole thing is. You "released" it on freakin' Twitter for crying out loud! (Although, when Colin Kaepernick is involved, ridiculous is normal, so we shouldn't have really been surprised.) Then the introduction states: "There have been so many false narratives in the media regarding Colin, we believe it is important to set the record straight, again. Nothing below is up for interpretation or debate, it's the truth and nothing else."
Except their definition of "truth" is just that. An interpretation. Problem is, their interpretation isn't the only one. I always say, "Your perception is your reality," and that's exactly what Kaepernick's "statement" is. It's their perception, thus it's their reality. Not everyone shares their perception, though, so you can't classify the two pages of stats that you think are so impressive as "the truth and nothing else." Because it's completely open to interpretation.
Not to mention the fact that some of these "facts" are either one-sided or completely wrong. For starters, it talks about how he fits into most teams' "systems" because he played in the West Coast Offense under Jim Harbaugh. Jim Harbaugh is currently the head coach at the University of Michigan! They're correct in that many teams adapt their offense to their quarterback's strengths, but the next sentence completely contradicts that entire point. It states, "Colin has the same skill set as many of the young mobile quarterbacks flourishing in the NFL right now." Kaepernick is 31! That isn't young!
Next, there's the point where they offer their "proof" that he still wants to play: "He has been working out five days a week, for three years, in preparation to play again." If he wanted to play so badly, why didn't he sign with the AAF, where he would've been the league's star attraction? Ditto about the XFL. I'm sure he'd be welcome in Canada, too. This isn't about playing. It's about playing in the NFL. There are plenty of opportunities for him to play if he actually wanted to. But that doesn't fit the narrative.
My favorite part, though, was page 2 with all the stats designed to show us how awesome a quarterback he is. Except they're not nearly as impressive as they'd like us to believe. Most of the stats they site came from 2016, his last year in the NFL. He put up those numbers for a 49ers team that went 2-14, with both of their wins coming over the Rams (they went 1-10 in his 11 starts). Most of those games were not close. So it's not exactly like he was leading this offensive juggernaut that was putting up an insane amount of points week after week.
They also felt the need to include that "Despite having to recover from three surgeries during 2016, Colin immediately started once healthy and was never beaten out by any other quarterback on the roster." The other quarterbacks on the 2016 49ers were Blaine Gabbert and Christian Ponder, who aren't exactly Tom Brady and Drew Brees. And no one's arguing that either Gabbert or Ponder is better than Kaepernick. On a team with those three options, he should be the starter. If he'd been beaten out by either of them, they'd have absolutely no argument instead of the weak one they currently have.
Yet, despite how "great" he was in 2016, the 49ers were still planning on cutting Kaepernick. And that decision had nothing to do with his protest. The fact is that after his flash-in-the-pan 2012 season where the 49ers went to the Super Bowl, his numbers got progressively worse every year after that. So did the team's record. There were plenty of performance-related reasons for San Francisco to want to go in a different direction. But, again, that doesn't fit the narrative.
Neither does the fact that all of his playoff exploits (a 4-2 record, two NFC Championship Game appearances and a berth in Super Bowl XLVII) all took place during the 2012 and 2013 seasons. Which means that over his final four seasons in San Francisco, the 49ers not only didn't win a playoff game, they didn't even play in any. It's also conveniently omitted that the 49ers also made it to the NFC Championship Game in 2011, the year before Kaepernick became their starting quarterback, which tells me it wasn't just him. Except that doesn't fit the narrative either.
And, just in case the delusional point about his age and ability hadn't been hammered home enough in this absurd Twitter post, the conclusion reiterates it one more time: "In summary, it is difficult to think of another young player in NFL history with statistics and character as impressive as Colin's not being given an opportunity to earn a spot on an NFL roster after what he has accomplished."
First off, he isn't young. He started a Super Bowl against an opponent that has already put two players in the Hall of Fame. Second, he last threw an NFL pass in 2016. If a team, any team, wanted him, he would've had an opportunity by now. But that ship has sailed. And it's also delusional to think that after all this time, he'd simply pick up right where he left off (which wasn't as great in reality as it was in his head). You can't let that get in the way of a good narrative, though.
Bottom line, it's been three years! And we're still talking about the same damn thing! NOBODY is going to change their mind! Either people support him and his "cause" or they got tired of him and this whole ordeal a long time ago. And, quite frankly, a lot of people on both sides don't even care anymore! (Although they did successfully get me to devote another blog post to this stupid topic.)
All Kaepernick and his people are doing is beating a dead horse. And, no matter how hard you beat it, that dead horse ain't coming back to life!
Monday, October 7, 2019
Recapping Worlds
Doha's World Championships have concluded, and the IAAF (or is it World Athletics now?) can look back on its venture into the desert with mixed results. The first-ever journey to the Middle East and later-than-usual scheduling were both risks, and whether or not those risks paid off are the subject of a much longer debate. Although, I would still argue that they were risks worth taking.
The attendance was definitely a problem. The embarrassingly empty stadium wasn't a good look, and the seats were only full later in the week after they started giving away free tickets and busing those people in. The heat was also as big of a problem as they anticipated, with the marathoners and race walkers (who didn't have the benefit of competing in the air-conditioned stadium) dropping like flies despite the midnight start.
But, for all its problems, Doha definitely had its moments. There was some scintillating competition and some new stars emerged over the last 10 days. And plenty of story lines were written as we now turn the page and look ahead to the Tokyo Olympics, which are less than 10 months away.
So, what were some of the best moments from Doha? Narrowing it down to 10, which wasn't easy. Because competition-wise, Doha delivered. This list is in no particular order. Also, honorable mention to those light shows before the sprint finals, which were simply awesome!
The attendance was definitely a problem. The embarrassingly empty stadium wasn't a good look, and the seats were only full later in the week after they started giving away free tickets and busing those people in. The heat was also as big of a problem as they anticipated, with the marathoners and race walkers (who didn't have the benefit of competing in the air-conditioned stadium) dropping like flies despite the midnight start.
But, for all its problems, Doha definitely had its moments. There was some scintillating competition and some new stars emerged over the last 10 days. And plenty of story lines were written as we now turn the page and look ahead to the Tokyo Olympics, which are less than 10 months away.
So, what were some of the best moments from Doha? Narrowing it down to 10, which wasn't easy. Because competition-wise, Doha delivered. This list is in no particular order. Also, honorable mention to those light shows before the sprint finals, which were simply awesome!
Mutaz Essa Barshim Delivers: Being the face of these Championships must not have been an easy assignment for Mutaz Essa Barshim. The defending champion in the men's high jump isn't just Qatari, he's actually from Doha! And on an electric Friday night, the hometown hero came through, clearing 7'9 1/4 on his first attempt to defend his title.
U.S. Men Dominate the Sprints: After a decade of being tormented by Usain Bolt, the U.S. male sprinters served notice that there's a new sheriff in town. Christian Coleman won the 100. Noah Lyles blew the field away in the 200. The U.S. won both relays. Other than the 400 and 400 hurdles, every race from 100 to 800 meters was won by an American. Eight medals (5 gold, 2 silver, 1 bronze) in the seven sprint races. Jamaica's total? One bronze, plus another in the mixed relay (and they didn't even make the final in the 4x1).
An EPIC Men's Shot Put Final: Simply put, this was the greatest men's shot put competition in history. FOUR men broke the previous championship record! In fourth place entering his final throw, Joe Kovacs uncorked a throw of 75'2 to move into the lead...by one centimeter! Ryan Crouser, the 2016 Olympic gold medalist, and defending champion Tomas Walsh had the same mark to finish second and third. Those were three of the seven best throws in history. Brazil's Darlan Romani threw 73'11, which was briefly the championship record and would've won every previous World Championship, but wasn't even enough to get on the podium.
Women's 400 Hurdles Showdown: When are people finally going to give Dalilah Muhammad her due? She's the Olympic gold medalist and world record holder, yet the only person NBC (and anybody else) ever talks about is Sydney McLaughlin. Their battle in the 400 hurdles was one of the most anticipated in the Championships. And they didn't disappoint. Muhammad broke her own world record to win gold, while McLaughlin ran the third-fastest time in history for silver. Then they both won gold as part of the USA's victorious 4x400 relay.
Sifan Hassan's Ridiculous Double: I'm gonna need someone to explain the scheduling of certain events to me. Because they made it virtually impossible to double! For example, the finals of the women's 1500 and 5000 weren't just on the same night, they were a half hour apart! So, after winning the 10,000, Sifan Hassan had to choose. She opted for the 1500, where she set a championship record to complete an absurd 1500-10,000 double!
DeAnna Price Hugging Everyone In Sight: DeAnna Price set the tone for the entire meet with her performance in the women's hammer throw on the opening weekend. Entering the meet, the U.S. had never won a medal in the women's hammer throw or a gold in any women's throwing event. Price checked off both of those boxes, launching the winning throw on her first attempt and watching as nobody was able to catch her. After which she was simply overcome with pure joy.
Pole Vault Duels: Heading into the meet, both pole vaults figured to be among the more competitive events on the program. And that proved to be exactly the case. In the women's event, Anzhelika Sidorova cleared 16'2-3/4 on the final jump of the competition to win gold and force Sandi Morris to settle for another silver. Then on the men's side, Sam Kendricks and Mondo Dulpantis matched each other jump for jump. They both cleared 19'7, but Kendricks had fewer misses, so he defended his World title.
Coming Out Parties: Donavan Brazier, all of 22, became the first American man to win a World Championship in the 800, setting a championship record in the process. Grant Holloway, who single-handedly won the NCAA indoor team title for Florida in March, took gold in the 110 hurdles at the ripe old age of 21. And 21-year-old Salwa Eid Naser ran the third-fastest time in history to win the
Mom Power: Shelly-Ann Fraser-Pryce took a break from the sport in 2017 to have a baby. She returned to the World Championships this year and won two gold medals (in the 100 and 4x100 relay), further cementing her place as the greatest female sprinter in history. Nia Ali has two kids. She won the 100 hurdles. And the great Allyson Felix, running in her eighth World Championships just 10 months after giving birth to her first child, won a pair of relay gold medals, giving her 14 career World Championship titles, the most in history.
New Event, New Records: One of Felix's gold medals came in the mixed 4x400 meter relay. At first, I was lukewarm about this new event, which will make its Olympic debut in Tokyo. But after seeing it in action, I'm a fan. It was cool to see men vs. women (or vice versa) and watch the different strategies play out. The U.S. set the world record in the heats, then changed the team completely and shattered that mark in the final. This event's gonna be around for a long time, and, in my opinion, it was a welcome addition to the program. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they changed it up and, instead of the traditional single-gender 4x4s, made this the final event of the meet...perhaps as early as Oregon 21.
And these moments didn't make my top 10, but still warrant mentioning: Germany's Nicklas Kaul had a ridiculous final three events to win the decathlon. Karsten Warholm edged Rai Benjamin in one of the fastest 400-meter hurdle races ever. Conseslus Kipruto won the men's steeplechase by .01 seconds (by comparison, Coleman won the 100 by .13 seconds and Lyles won the 200 by .12 seconds).
Finally, an act of ultimate sportsmanship, which came on the opening night of the Championships. In the heats of the men's 5000, Aruba's Johnathan Busby was struggling and on the verge of collapsing. Also trailing the field, Guinea-Bissau's Braima Dabo stopped and helped his competitor across the finish line. It's a moment that nobody who was watching will ever forget.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)