As you know, I don't discuss the NBA much in this space. But I saw something the other day that I simply couldn't ignore. It's something so stupid that I hope it's simply an idea that's just being floated around. I'm hoping that they're trying to see people's reaction, then not pull the trigger when they realize how much people hate it. But knowing the NBA, no matter how dumb the idea, they're most likely going to do it.
In case you haven't seen it, it's about halfway down this article from ESPN.com. It touches on four different elements regarding the schedule, every one of which is incredibly stupid. Nothing is imminent, but if adopted, these changes would be implemented in time for the NBA's 75th anniversary season in 2021-22. Hopefully these talks don't progress beyond initial discussions between the league and the NBPA.
Let's take these one at a time. First is a "midseason tournament similar to those used in European leagues."
What is this obsession with European leagues? This is North America! Things are done differently here! You know what else they have in Europe? Relegation! And I don't see any NBA owners signing up for a league with promotion and relegation anytime soon!
I don't even understand what this midseason tournament is or the purpose of it. Is there any sort of incentive for winning it? Do you give the winner an automatic playoff spot? If you do that, why would that team bother playing its stars the rest of the season? Sure, you could make it financial, but are the owners of actual contenders going to want their players going all out to win some meaningless "tournament" in mid-January? And, sorry, but fans aren't going to buy that they should suddenly care more about a random Tuesday night game in December between the Nets and 76ers because it's part of this tournament.
And when do you want to have this stupid tournament? You can't do it in November (too early). You can't do it in November (can't touch the Christmas games). You can't do it in January (NFL playoffs). You can't do it in March (NCAA Tournament). So, I guess that leaves February, which is the All*Star Break, and I highly doubt they want to go anywhere near that. (And don't get me started on that ridiculous "choose your own team" nonsense with the All*Star Game!)
They also want to reduce the schedule from 82 to games to 78, presumably to make room for this dumb "NBA Cup." The idea of every team losing two regular-season home games should make that a non-starter, but it's evidently getting some traction because of the "load management" (aka, rest) issue that the league has been dealing with for a few years.
That's less of a problem with me than one of the proposals I saw that has actually been submitted from one Eastern Conference executive. He wants teams to play 62 games, then be divided into "tiers" and play their final 18 games within their "tier." These "tiers" would presumably be the teams ranked 1-10, 11-20 and 21-30 in the league (again taken from UEFA and its "Nations League"). Isn't that what the playoffs are for? And what's the purpose of divisions then?
Where do I start with this proposal? Well, how about the fact that it has teams not knowing their entire schedule before the season starts?! You want fans to buy season tickets without knowing when nine games are going to be and who those games will be against?! And you've got uncertainty with the teams, too, who'll have to make last-minute travel plans. Then there's the arenas, which may have hockey games, concerts, college basketball, etc. In other words, they can't just leave dates open for potential NBA games! They already do that for possible playoff games, now you want them to do it in the regular season too?! For what?
Logistically, it doesn't make any sense, either. Not only are you making some poor guy in the NBA office create the final six weeks of the schedule on the fly at the last minute, you've got TV partners to consider (although, seeing as ESPN worships at the altar of the NBA, I'm sure they'd jump on board with anything immediately).
Not to mention the travel. In addition to the arena considerations, I can envision a scenario where a team's gotta fly all over the country over the final six weeks of the season. And again, for what? The whole point of divisions is so that teams located near each other can play more frequently. And cross-country trips are usually set up so that you only have to go out West once or twice a season (you play the Lakers, Clippers and Suns on one trip, the Warriors, Kings and Blazers on the other). Same things when the West Coast teams travel east (play Celtics, Knicks, Nets, then play 76ers, Wizards, Hornets).
Speaking of divisions, there are two proposed changes to the playoffs. The first one involves expanding the playoffs to 10 teams in each conference, but having a "play-in" round for the 7-10 seeds. This was first brought up by Adam Silver himself more than a year ago, so you know the league office is serious about it. It would basically be patterned after the WNBA's playoff format, where there's a series of single-elimination games before advancing to the playoffs proper.
Honestly, I'm indifferent to this. Of the four proposals, it's the one that bothers me the least. Is there a need for it, though? Not really. Especially when you've already got mediocre teams fighting it out for the right to get slaughtered in the first round by the top seeds (the top four seeds in the East went a combined 12-2 in the first round last season). And the NBA playoffs already take forever. How much longer do you want to make them? (Unless, in another burst of inspiration from European soccer, they want them playing year-round.)
Lastly, there's talk about reseeding the playoffs once they're down to four teams, essentially turning the Conference Finals into NBA semifinals. This, of course, is in response to the fact that the Western Conference is significantly stronger than the East. Again, it's something the WNBA has been doing for years. But the WNBA only has 12 teams and ignores the conferences come playoff time.
If you want to do the same thing in the NBA, you'd have to ignore the conferences there, too, which is much harder to do in a 30-team league. And you can't have it both ways! You can't do it by conference for two rounds, then forget about them when you get down to the semifinals! Either do it by conference the whole way or not at all! And, how often are the two best teams in the league in the same conference anyway? You want to radically change the entire playoff system for something that might happen once every few years? (Also, how do you decide who's a "conference" champion under this format?)
Hopefully these ideas don't get much past the discussion stage. Because the only word I can think of to describe them is "dumb." But, the NBA has adopted plenty of dumb ideas in recent years, so I wouldn't be surprised if they implement these, too. Or...maybe common sense can prevail!
Saturday, November 30, 2019
Thursday, November 28, 2019
NFL 100: Week 13
Yes, that's right, the picks post on a Thursday! But, as regular readers know, since Thanksgiving is the NFL's biggest holiday and there's always three games, Thanksgiving week is the one exception (other than the opener) that results in early picks.
Byes are finally over, too, which means we've got all 16 teams playing for the first time since Week 3. And there are some big ones with major playoff implications this week. Three teams can clinch spots, starting with the Saints on Thanksgiving night. I know luck came into play here (and flex scheduling last week), but the NFL really did a good job with the schedule this year. The national games both last week and this week have all been really good.
Bears (5-6) at Lions (3-7-1): Chicago-I'm a little surprised the NFL didn't go with Lions-Packers. Green Bay was Detroit's permanent Thanksgiving opponent for a while, so I figured they'd want that to be the Lions' Thanksgiving game in the anniversary season. Instead they play Chicago for the second straight year...with their third-string quarterback under center...going against the Bears' defense. The Bears beat the Lions just three weeks ago. They should do it again, but, sadly, they won't have any turducken waiting for them.
Bills (8-3) at Cowboys (6-5): Dallas-When the NFL set Buffalo as the Cowboys' Thanksgiving opponent, a lot of people didn't know what to make of it. Well, as it turns out, the Bills are 8-3 and look playoff-bound. This begins a brutal stretch for them, but they've got a two-game cushion in the wild card race. Dallas, meanwhile, is clinging to a one-game lead in the NFC East after that performance against New England that prompted Jerry Jones' wrath. He should feel better after this game.
Saints (9-2) at Falcons (3-8): New Orleans-For the second straight year, Saints-Falcons is the Thanksgiving night game. And New Orleans clinches the NFC South with a win. They'd have clinched it last week if they didn't have that shocking loss the first time they played Atlanta. The Saints have a huge showdown with the 49ers next week which could be for home field in the NFC. But they need to win this one first. After what happened in Week 10, they'll make sure of it.
Jets (4-7) at Bengals (0-11): Jets-Cincinnati has four chances to avoid joining the Lions and Browns in the 0-16 club (because, let's face it, they're not beating New England). On paper, this was their last best chance until a few weeks ago, when the Jets suddenly became this offensive powerhouse that scores 34 points every game. At first that seemed like a product of playing the Giants and Redskins, then they went and did the same thing to the Raiders. Sorry, Bengals fans, but you're staring 0-12 in the face.
Titans (6-5) at Colts (6-5): Tennessee-Overlook the Tennessee Titans at your own peril. Because the AFC South might just be theirs for the taking. They haven't played the Texans yet, and they could be tied with Houston for first place by the end of Sunday. That's why last week's loss to Houston was so costly for Indianapolis. It not only gave the Texans the division lead, but it pushed them into a tie with the Titans, making this one just as huge. And, frankly, I like what the Titans have been doing offensively. They go to 7-5 and, at worst, move into a tie for the second wild card spot.
Eagles (5-6) at Dolphins (2-9): Philadelphia-It's basically a battle for the 4-seed and the right to lose to Seattle or Minnesota between Philadelphia and Dallas. And week to week, you really can't tell which one doesn't want to make the playoffs more. Frankly, I think it's because both the Eagles and Cowboys just aren't that good (especially compared to the NFC's big 5). The Eagles have dropped two straight to New England and Seattle, but go back to playing the JV this week, which should get them back to .500.
Packers (8-3) at Giants (2-9): Green Bay-As Al Michaels said at the end of the game on Sunday night, the Packers are probably most thankful that they don't have any more trips to California on their schedule (at least in the regular season). And that loss to the 49ers might've been costly for a few reasons. First and foremost, it gave San Francisco the tiebreaker. But it also dropped the Packers to the 3-seed and thus no bye, while also putting them in a tie with the Vikings. So, basically, losing to the Giants would be really bad.
Browns (5-6) at Steelers (6-5): Pittsburgh-Let's just hope the end of this one isn't as eventful as their meeting in Cleveland. That, to say the least, was nasty. Although, both Myles Garrett's and Mike Pouncey's suspensions have them out for the rematch, and you know both teams will be on their best behavior. The Steelers, by the way, have somehow moved into the second AFC wild card spot. They have a perilous hold on it, though. And a second loss to the Browns would make it all but impossible for Pittsburgh to make the playoffs (especially since Cleveland still plays Cincinnati twice and Arizona).
Redskins (2-9) at Panthers (5-6): Carolina-Carolina's three-game losing streak has all but eliminated the Panthers from playoff contention. They essentially have to win out and hope at least one of the four dominant teams in the North or West goes on a massive slide (which seems unlikely). And let's not forget the Redskins, who finally won a home game for the first time in more than a year on Sunday! That was against the Lions, though. The Panthers aren't nearly as bad as the Lions.
Buccaneers (4-7) at Jaguars (4-7): Tampa Bay-Bruce Arians definitely has the Bucs going in the right direction. Especially in the past few weeks, Tampa Bay has looked really impressive. Jacksonville, meanwhile, finally returns home for the first time since Week 8. But that's what they signed up for when they agreed to host one of the London games every year. And their return to Northeast Florida will be disrupted by the guys from the other side of the state.
49ers (10-1) at Ravens (9-2): Baltimore-Baltimore is the best team in the NFL. There, I said it. And, after what they did to the Packers last Sunday night, the 49ers are making a pretty strong case as the best team in the NFC (I still say it's the Saints, though). Could this Super Bowl XLVII rematch be a Super Bowl LIV preview? And it's a huge test for San Francisco. Not just a cross country trip for a 1:00 kickoff, but probably the toughest opponent they've faced all season. We'll see how their defense can handle Lamar Jackson. Or, perhaps more accurately, what Lamar Jackson can do to their defense.
Rams (6-5) at Cardinals (3-7-1): Rams-They're a fringe playoff contender, but the Rams sure didn't look like it last week. Lamar Jackson and the Ravens sliced and diced them for 55 minutes on Monday night. It was bad. Although, frankly, that offense has had problems all season. Frankly, they play the Cardinals this week. Because they're a better team than Arizona. They can't afford to drop this one with Seattle, Dallas and San Francisco coming up.
Chargers (4-7) at Broncos (3-8): Chargers-Things haven't quite gone the way the Chargers and their fans expected them to this season. At 4-7, they're not just looking up a the Chiefs, the Raiders are ahead of them, too. At least they still have the Broncos. Things haven't exactly gone well in Denver this season, either. Bad luck has been the culprit for some of that, but 3-8 is 3-8. And that'll become 3-9. Because the Chargers won't go winless thru this three-game division run.
Raiders (6-5) at Chiefs (7-4): Kansas City-Oakland blew a golden opportunity to make this game really mean something when they flew cross country and laid an egg against the Jets last week. Now that turns this game into an absolute must-win for the Raiders, who already lost to Kansas City this season. The Chiefs, meanwhile, can pretty much wrap up the division with a win, which is equally important, seeing as they go to New England next week. They'll head to Foxboro for the AFC Championship Game rematch at 8-4.
Patriots (10-1) at Texans (7-4): Houston-New England will know going in whether or not they can clinch a playoff spot on Sunday night. All the Patriots need is either a Raiders or Steelers loss (both of which are very realistic possibilities), and a win locks up yet another Bradicheck playoff berth. Except I like the Texans to pull the upset here. Houston is a very similar team to Baltimore, and the Ravens dominated the Patriots when they played them on a Sunday night. Especially with that extra time to prepare, I see Houston giving New England all it can handle and then some.
Vikings (8-3) at Seahawks (9-2): Seattle-Neither one is at risk of losing their playoff spot. But the Monday night game is huge for seeding. The winner has the upper hand on the 5-seed, which means the NFC East winner instead of the 12-4 team that doesn't get a bye. The division is also in still in play for the winner. And that'll be Seattle. We really need to start talking about the Seahawks on the same level as the Ravens, Patriots, 49ers and Saints. They're THAT good!
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 103-72-1
Byes are finally over, too, which means we've got all 16 teams playing for the first time since Week 3. And there are some big ones with major playoff implications this week. Three teams can clinch spots, starting with the Saints on Thanksgiving night. I know luck came into play here (and flex scheduling last week), but the NFL really did a good job with the schedule this year. The national games both last week and this week have all been really good.
Bears (5-6) at Lions (3-7-1): Chicago-I'm a little surprised the NFL didn't go with Lions-Packers. Green Bay was Detroit's permanent Thanksgiving opponent for a while, so I figured they'd want that to be the Lions' Thanksgiving game in the anniversary season. Instead they play Chicago for the second straight year...with their third-string quarterback under center...going against the Bears' defense. The Bears beat the Lions just three weeks ago. They should do it again, but, sadly, they won't have any turducken waiting for them.
Bills (8-3) at Cowboys (6-5): Dallas-When the NFL set Buffalo as the Cowboys' Thanksgiving opponent, a lot of people didn't know what to make of it. Well, as it turns out, the Bills are 8-3 and look playoff-bound. This begins a brutal stretch for them, but they've got a two-game cushion in the wild card race. Dallas, meanwhile, is clinging to a one-game lead in the NFC East after that performance against New England that prompted Jerry Jones' wrath. He should feel better after this game.
Saints (9-2) at Falcons (3-8): New Orleans-For the second straight year, Saints-Falcons is the Thanksgiving night game. And New Orleans clinches the NFC South with a win. They'd have clinched it last week if they didn't have that shocking loss the first time they played Atlanta. The Saints have a huge showdown with the 49ers next week which could be for home field in the NFC. But they need to win this one first. After what happened in Week 10, they'll make sure of it.
Jets (4-7) at Bengals (0-11): Jets-Cincinnati has four chances to avoid joining the Lions and Browns in the 0-16 club (because, let's face it, they're not beating New England). On paper, this was their last best chance until a few weeks ago, when the Jets suddenly became this offensive powerhouse that scores 34 points every game. At first that seemed like a product of playing the Giants and Redskins, then they went and did the same thing to the Raiders. Sorry, Bengals fans, but you're staring 0-12 in the face.
Titans (6-5) at Colts (6-5): Tennessee-Overlook the Tennessee Titans at your own peril. Because the AFC South might just be theirs for the taking. They haven't played the Texans yet, and they could be tied with Houston for first place by the end of Sunday. That's why last week's loss to Houston was so costly for Indianapolis. It not only gave the Texans the division lead, but it pushed them into a tie with the Titans, making this one just as huge. And, frankly, I like what the Titans have been doing offensively. They go to 7-5 and, at worst, move into a tie for the second wild card spot.
Eagles (5-6) at Dolphins (2-9): Philadelphia-It's basically a battle for the 4-seed and the right to lose to Seattle or Minnesota between Philadelphia and Dallas. And week to week, you really can't tell which one doesn't want to make the playoffs more. Frankly, I think it's because both the Eagles and Cowboys just aren't that good (especially compared to the NFC's big 5). The Eagles have dropped two straight to New England and Seattle, but go back to playing the JV this week, which should get them back to .500.
Packers (8-3) at Giants (2-9): Green Bay-As Al Michaels said at the end of the game on Sunday night, the Packers are probably most thankful that they don't have any more trips to California on their schedule (at least in the regular season). And that loss to the 49ers might've been costly for a few reasons. First and foremost, it gave San Francisco the tiebreaker. But it also dropped the Packers to the 3-seed and thus no bye, while also putting them in a tie with the Vikings. So, basically, losing to the Giants would be really bad.
Browns (5-6) at Steelers (6-5): Pittsburgh-Let's just hope the end of this one isn't as eventful as their meeting in Cleveland. That, to say the least, was nasty. Although, both Myles Garrett's and Mike Pouncey's suspensions have them out for the rematch, and you know both teams will be on their best behavior. The Steelers, by the way, have somehow moved into the second AFC wild card spot. They have a perilous hold on it, though. And a second loss to the Browns would make it all but impossible for Pittsburgh to make the playoffs (especially since Cleveland still plays Cincinnati twice and Arizona).
Redskins (2-9) at Panthers (5-6): Carolina-Carolina's three-game losing streak has all but eliminated the Panthers from playoff contention. They essentially have to win out and hope at least one of the four dominant teams in the North or West goes on a massive slide (which seems unlikely). And let's not forget the Redskins, who finally won a home game for the first time in more than a year on Sunday! That was against the Lions, though. The Panthers aren't nearly as bad as the Lions.
Buccaneers (4-7) at Jaguars (4-7): Tampa Bay-Bruce Arians definitely has the Bucs going in the right direction. Especially in the past few weeks, Tampa Bay has looked really impressive. Jacksonville, meanwhile, finally returns home for the first time since Week 8. But that's what they signed up for when they agreed to host one of the London games every year. And their return to Northeast Florida will be disrupted by the guys from the other side of the state.
49ers (10-1) at Ravens (9-2): Baltimore-Baltimore is the best team in the NFL. There, I said it. And, after what they did to the Packers last Sunday night, the 49ers are making a pretty strong case as the best team in the NFC (I still say it's the Saints, though). Could this Super Bowl XLVII rematch be a Super Bowl LIV preview? And it's a huge test for San Francisco. Not just a cross country trip for a 1:00 kickoff, but probably the toughest opponent they've faced all season. We'll see how their defense can handle Lamar Jackson. Or, perhaps more accurately, what Lamar Jackson can do to their defense.
Rams (6-5) at Cardinals (3-7-1): Rams-They're a fringe playoff contender, but the Rams sure didn't look like it last week. Lamar Jackson and the Ravens sliced and diced them for 55 minutes on Monday night. It was bad. Although, frankly, that offense has had problems all season. Frankly, they play the Cardinals this week. Because they're a better team than Arizona. They can't afford to drop this one with Seattle, Dallas and San Francisco coming up.
Chargers (4-7) at Broncos (3-8): Chargers-Things haven't quite gone the way the Chargers and their fans expected them to this season. At 4-7, they're not just looking up a the Chiefs, the Raiders are ahead of them, too. At least they still have the Broncos. Things haven't exactly gone well in Denver this season, either. Bad luck has been the culprit for some of that, but 3-8 is 3-8. And that'll become 3-9. Because the Chargers won't go winless thru this three-game division run.
Raiders (6-5) at Chiefs (7-4): Kansas City-Oakland blew a golden opportunity to make this game really mean something when they flew cross country and laid an egg against the Jets last week. Now that turns this game into an absolute must-win for the Raiders, who already lost to Kansas City this season. The Chiefs, meanwhile, can pretty much wrap up the division with a win, which is equally important, seeing as they go to New England next week. They'll head to Foxboro for the AFC Championship Game rematch at 8-4.
Patriots (10-1) at Texans (7-4): Houston-New England will know going in whether or not they can clinch a playoff spot on Sunday night. All the Patriots need is either a Raiders or Steelers loss (both of which are very realistic possibilities), and a win locks up yet another Bradicheck playoff berth. Except I like the Texans to pull the upset here. Houston is a very similar team to Baltimore, and the Ravens dominated the Patriots when they played them on a Sunday night. Especially with that extra time to prepare, I see Houston giving New England all it can handle and then some.
Vikings (8-3) at Seahawks (9-2): Seattle-Neither one is at risk of losing their playoff spot. But the Monday night game is huge for seeding. The winner has the upper hand on the 5-seed, which means the NFC East winner instead of the 12-4 team that doesn't get a bye. The division is also in still in play for the winner. And that'll be Seattle. We really need to start talking about the Seahawks on the same level as the Ravens, Patriots, 49ers and Saints. They're THAT good!
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 103-72-1
Tuesday, November 26, 2019
The Russian Dopes Are At It Again
Apparently having its athletes forced to compete as "OAR" in PyeongChang wasn't humiliating enough for Russia. Because it looks like they're going to subject their summer athletes to a similar fate in Tokyo. And, frankly, they deserve it. Their athletes don't, but the Russians have shown very little regard for their clean athletes throughout this entire process, so why start now?
I've tried to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt. I've felt that the country's ban from international track & field has been long enough and had long been advocating working them back into the fold. Partially because I hate the stupid "ANA" designation, but also because it's unfair to the clean Russian athletes (of which there are plenty), who can't compete under their own flag. Not to mention the Russian athletes in other sports who are booed and/or labeled as "cheaters" simply because of that flag.
The only way for that to stop, I reasoned, was to move forward. And the process of moving forward couldn't begin as long as Russia--and, by extension, all Russian athletes--was viewed as a pariah. My view has since changed, however. Because these dopes can't get out of their own way. And a message needs to be sent.
It's like the SMU football death penalty in 1987. SMU was so brazenly breaking NCAA rules...for so long...even after being sanctioned and told repeatedly to stop, that the NCAA was left with no other choice. The SMU football program was out of control, and there was no other way to stop it. Yes, the NCAA death penalty was the nuclear option. But it got the point across.
Russia appeared to be well on its way to reinstatement. They were following WADA's conditions, had handed over the long-sought-after blood samples, and even the Moscow lab had been re-accredited.
Or so we thought. As it turns out, they were spitting right in the face of both WADA and their own athletes. Because they weren't actually making any attempt to reform. It was just the opposite actually. Banned coaches were still working with athletes. Government officials were interfering with doping investigations. And, worst of all, they were manipulating the results of tests for certain athletes, even going so far as deleting files from the lab's computers. There's really no way to come up with a reasonable explanation that would prove that any of these actions were anything other than deliberate.
As a result, World Athletics (that's still going to take some getting used to) hasn't just suspended Russia's reinstatement. Now it seems more likely that Russia will be kicked out of international track & field altogether. You'd have to assume that the "ANA" athletes would still be allowed to compete, but they'd truly become men and women without a country.
That's the least of Russia's problems, though. As a result of "an extremely serious case of non-compliance with the requirement to provide an authentic copy of the Moscow data, with several aggravating features," WADA has recommended a four-year ban on Russia, which would include both the 2020 and 2022 Olympics.
This suspension wouldn't just apply to the Olympics, either. It would apply to any event in all sports that are subject to WADA code. That includes Euro 2020, for which Russia has already qualified and is supposed to be one of the hosts. And all IIHF events. Tennis, gymnastics, swimming and figure skating all fall under WADA code, too, although I'd imagine clean Russian athletes in those individual sports would be treated the same way as those in track & field, provided they pass the a similar rigorous screening process to the one that track & field utilizes to clear individual Russians.
Also included among WADA's recommendations is the requirement that Russia cannot host or even bid to host major sporting events during that four-year period, with any events that already have been awarded to Russia moved elsewhere. They'd also be prohibited from bidding for the 2032 Olympics. Seeing as this whole thing started because Russia hosted two major events in back-to-back years (2013 Track & Field World Championships in Moscow, 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi), that should've been a no-brainer already.
IOC President Thomas Bach is opposed to a blanket ban on Russia, primarily because he doesn't want clean athletes to suffer. That's why they were allowed to compete as "OAR" in PyeongChang and likely will be again in Tokyo (and possibly Beijing). And in that regard, he's right. There are clean Russian athletes who are already being deprived the honor of competing for their country. They shouldn't be deprived the opportunity to compete entirely, though, especially if they have nothing to do with this and have been doing everything the right way.
WADA's recommendations are just that. Recommendations. They won't be voted upon until a December 9 meeting in Paris, although the "OAR/ANA" thing seems to be the most likely solution. Some people will be unhappy that it isn't a blanket ban, but what would that accomplish? It would be a similar scenario to the 1980-84 boycotts, where way too many athletes had their Olympic dreams taken away because of Cold War politics.
And, I hate to break it to you, but not every Russian athlete is dirty. In fact, I think the vast majority of them are not. Which is why they shouldn't be the ones who suffer. It should be the higher-ups in the government and sports federations and Russian Olympic Committee. They're the one who are most responsible for the wrongdoing, and they're the ones who should be punished.
Besides, the athletes are being punished plenty. From the guilt by association to the generic uniforms to not being able to hear their national anthem and see their flag raised. The greatest moment in Russian hockey history, the gold medal in PyeongChang, technically never happened. Maria Lasistskene has brought immense national pride to the "Authorized Neutral Athletes" with her back-to-back World Championships.
So, yes, I feel for Lasistskene and other athletes like her. She's perhaps the biggest victim in this entire saga. By all accounts, Lasitskene has achieved all of her success legitimately. Yet she wasn't allowed to go to Rio simply because she's Russian and has been subjected to the ridiculous "ANA" designation for far too long for the same reason. Although, at least World Athletics knows it's the federation, not the athletes, that are the problem.
Which is why the IOC should follow suit. They gave Russia a chance to do everything by the book and earn its way back into good standing. Time and again, Russia failed to do that. So the time has come for the message to be sent. Let them know you're serious. Don't do that stupid, ineffective PyeongChang quasi-suspension. Make them take a four-year timeout. Hopefully that'll be enough time for them to figure things out.
I've tried to give the Russians the benefit of the doubt. I've felt that the country's ban from international track & field has been long enough and had long been advocating working them back into the fold. Partially because I hate the stupid "ANA" designation, but also because it's unfair to the clean Russian athletes (of which there are plenty), who can't compete under their own flag. Not to mention the Russian athletes in other sports who are booed and/or labeled as "cheaters" simply because of that flag.
The only way for that to stop, I reasoned, was to move forward. And the process of moving forward couldn't begin as long as Russia--and, by extension, all Russian athletes--was viewed as a pariah. My view has since changed, however. Because these dopes can't get out of their own way. And a message needs to be sent.
It's like the SMU football death penalty in 1987. SMU was so brazenly breaking NCAA rules...for so long...even after being sanctioned and told repeatedly to stop, that the NCAA was left with no other choice. The SMU football program was out of control, and there was no other way to stop it. Yes, the NCAA death penalty was the nuclear option. But it got the point across.
Russia appeared to be well on its way to reinstatement. They were following WADA's conditions, had handed over the long-sought-after blood samples, and even the Moscow lab had been re-accredited.
Or so we thought. As it turns out, they were spitting right in the face of both WADA and their own athletes. Because they weren't actually making any attempt to reform. It was just the opposite actually. Banned coaches were still working with athletes. Government officials were interfering with doping investigations. And, worst of all, they were manipulating the results of tests for certain athletes, even going so far as deleting files from the lab's computers. There's really no way to come up with a reasonable explanation that would prove that any of these actions were anything other than deliberate.
As a result, World Athletics (that's still going to take some getting used to) hasn't just suspended Russia's reinstatement. Now it seems more likely that Russia will be kicked out of international track & field altogether. You'd have to assume that the "ANA" athletes would still be allowed to compete, but they'd truly become men and women without a country.
That's the least of Russia's problems, though. As a result of "an extremely serious case of non-compliance with the requirement to provide an authentic copy of the Moscow data, with several aggravating features," WADA has recommended a four-year ban on Russia, which would include both the 2020 and 2022 Olympics.
This suspension wouldn't just apply to the Olympics, either. It would apply to any event in all sports that are subject to WADA code. That includes Euro 2020, for which Russia has already qualified and is supposed to be one of the hosts. And all IIHF events. Tennis, gymnastics, swimming and figure skating all fall under WADA code, too, although I'd imagine clean Russian athletes in those individual sports would be treated the same way as those in track & field, provided they pass the a similar rigorous screening process to the one that track & field utilizes to clear individual Russians.
Also included among WADA's recommendations is the requirement that Russia cannot host or even bid to host major sporting events during that four-year period, with any events that already have been awarded to Russia moved elsewhere. They'd also be prohibited from bidding for the 2032 Olympics. Seeing as this whole thing started because Russia hosted two major events in back-to-back years (2013 Track & Field World Championships in Moscow, 2014 Winter Olympics in Sochi), that should've been a no-brainer already.
IOC President Thomas Bach is opposed to a blanket ban on Russia, primarily because he doesn't want clean athletes to suffer. That's why they were allowed to compete as "OAR" in PyeongChang and likely will be again in Tokyo (and possibly Beijing). And in that regard, he's right. There are clean Russian athletes who are already being deprived the honor of competing for their country. They shouldn't be deprived the opportunity to compete entirely, though, especially if they have nothing to do with this and have been doing everything the right way.
WADA's recommendations are just that. Recommendations. They won't be voted upon until a December 9 meeting in Paris, although the "OAR/ANA" thing seems to be the most likely solution. Some people will be unhappy that it isn't a blanket ban, but what would that accomplish? It would be a similar scenario to the 1980-84 boycotts, where way too many athletes had their Olympic dreams taken away because of Cold War politics.
And, I hate to break it to you, but not every Russian athlete is dirty. In fact, I think the vast majority of them are not. Which is why they shouldn't be the ones who suffer. It should be the higher-ups in the government and sports federations and Russian Olympic Committee. They're the one who are most responsible for the wrongdoing, and they're the ones who should be punished.
Besides, the athletes are being punished plenty. From the guilt by association to the generic uniforms to not being able to hear their national anthem and see their flag raised. The greatest moment in Russian hockey history, the gold medal in PyeongChang, technically never happened. Maria Lasistskene has brought immense national pride to the "Authorized Neutral Athletes" with her back-to-back World Championships.
So, yes, I feel for Lasistskene and other athletes like her. She's perhaps the biggest victim in this entire saga. By all accounts, Lasitskene has achieved all of her success legitimately. Yet she wasn't allowed to go to Rio simply because she's Russian and has been subjected to the ridiculous "ANA" designation for far too long for the same reason. Although, at least World Athletics knows it's the federation, not the athletes, that are the problem.
Which is why the IOC should follow suit. They gave Russia a chance to do everything by the book and earn its way back into good standing. Time and again, Russia failed to do that. So the time has come for the message to be sent. Let them know you're serious. Don't do that stupid, ineffective PyeongChang quasi-suspension. Make them take a four-year timeout. Hopefully that'll be enough time for them to figure things out.
Sunday, November 24, 2019
NFL 100: Week 12
Of course, the one time I actually pick the Colts to beat the Texans, Houston wins. And it was a big one for the Texans. It keeps them as the No. 3 seed in the AFC and, more importantly, they avoided getting swept by Indianapolis, which really might've been costly in the division race. In fact, it could be the thing that gives Houston the division and knocks Indy out entirely.
And now that we've finally reached the final week of byes, the playoff picture is going to become an even bigger focus. It's usually starting on Thanksgiving that we see the playoff standings at the end of every game involving good teams. And there are plenty of those this week. All three national games (all four including Thursday night) include at least one first-place team. In fact, the Rams are the only non-first-place team playing in prime time this week.
Thursday Night: Indianapolis (Loss)
Buccaneers (3-7) at Falcons (3-7): Atlanta-Where did this come from? After starting 1-7, the Atlanta Falcons suddenly have this dominant defense. They've only given up 12 points combined in their last two games, both wins. Now they look to make it three in a row against division rivals. Considering the fact that they play five straight in the division and six of their last eight are division games, maybe Atlanta's season isn't lost, after all. They still have no chance at winning the division, but, like the Steelers, they can at least make their record look a lot more respectable at the end.
Broncos (3-7) at Bills (7-3): Buffalo-Criticize the Bills all you want for beating up on bad teams. You can only play who's on the schedule, and those bad teams have put the Bills in a good position to make the playoffs. The tough part of their schedule is coming (at Dallas, Baltimore, at Pittsburgh, New England), but a win here gets them to 8-3 and gives them a two-game lead over seventh place in the AFC. Win here, win against Miami in Week 17, and that should be enough even if the Bills lose all four of those games.
Giants (2-8) at Bears (4-6): Giants-As the NFL celebrates its 100th season, two of the league's marquee franchises are struggling. The Giants have lost six straight, while the Bears have dropped five out of six. Chicago will be the early game on Thanksgiving, so this gives them a chance to carry some momentum into that nationally-televised contest in Detroit. I think the Giants see this as one of the few remaining winnable games on their schedule, though. The Bears' defense will give the Giants problems, but Chicago's not having an offense will be a bigger problem and the Giants snap their skid.
Steelers (5-5) at Bengals (0-10): Pittsburgh-The first time these two teams met, they were both in danger of falling into the abyss. They were both 0-3 on that Monday night and the Steelers dominated. That started Pittsburgh on a 5-2 run that has them seriously thinking playoffs. The Bengals, meanwhile, are still winless, which isn't as crazy as how badly they've been losing. They haven't even been close in most of their games! This is the Steelers' first game since the disgusting events last week in Cleveland, so we'll see if there's any carryover. Fortunately, against the Bengals, the loss of Mike Pouncey shouldn't have too much of an impact.
Dolphins (2-7) at Browns (3-6): Cleveland-Speaking of the disgusting events last week in Cleveland, Browns fans found a way to make it worse. There was actually a petition going around online seeking Myles Garrett's reinstatement that has gathered more than 60,000 signatures. Seriously??!! Did they see the guy commit assault on national television? Anyway, Garrett is rightfully suspended for the rest of the season, which severely damages the Browns' faint playoff hopes. They shouldn't need him to beat Miami, even if the Dolphins have somehow suddenly won two in a row (blowing their chances at wresting the No. 1 pick away from Cincinnati).
Panthers (5-5) at Saints (8-2): New Orleans-Cross flexing has been a thing for at least like five years, and it still confuses me. For example, Jets-Redskins was on FOX instead of CBS last week for some reason. I have no idea why. And this one was flipped to CBS as their marquee game. But that's because all of the AFC road games suck and CBS wanted at least one good game. So Panthers-Saints it is. New Orleans rebounded from that random loss to Atlanta by dominating the Bucs last week. A win here should all but wrap up the NFC South with a month to go.
Raiders (6-4) at Jets (3-7): Oakland-Don't look now, but the Oakland Raiders are right smack in the middle of the playoff race. And they can move into a wild card spot (and a first-place tie with the Chiefs) with a win over the Jets at Met Life Stadium. The weather in this area isn't supposed to be good on Sunday, but the Raiders are hot. And the Jets need to prove that they can beat an AFC team. They're 3-1 against the NFC East, 0-6 against their own conference.
Seahawks (8-2) at Eagles (5-5): Settle-It got flexed out of Sunday night, which says nothing about the quality of this game. Because this matchup has a big bearing on the NFC playoff standings. Seattle is firmly in a playoff position, while the Eagles probably have to focus on the division race. Especially if they drop this one, which would put them four games behind Seattle and give the Seahawks the tiebreaker.
Lions (3-6-1) at Redskins (1-9): Detroit-Those faint playoff chances that Detroit was clinging to are all but gone now. The Lions have dropped six out of seven, with the only win coming against the Giants. Fortunately for them, the Redskins are in the same company as the Giants. Although, I'm still not sure what this team looks like without Matthew Stafford. It's going to be a long six weeks without him one way or another. They'll get even longer if they lose to the Redskins.
Jaguars (4-6) at Titans (5-5): Tennessee-That Texans win on Thursday night had major implications on this game, too. Because the Titans haven't played Houston yet and play Indianapolis next week. So, a win over the Jaguars to get to 6-5 and keeps them right in the thick of it. A loss, though, and they're tied with Jacksonville, two games behind Houston. That's a big difference. Especially since both wild cards are wide open.
Cowboys (6-4) at Patriots (9-1): New England-Get ready to see a lot of the Dallas Cowboys. The Cowboys are the national game a lot anyway, but their next five games are all national TV affairs. Starting with a heavyweight matchup in Foxboro. The Patriots haven't lost a home game in what seems like three years and their two toughest games remaining (Dallas, Kansas City) are both at home. Dallas always shows up for games like this, though, so I think they might give New England all they can handle. In the end, though, expect Bradicheck to make it another 10-win season.
Packers (8-2) at 49ers (9-1): Green Bay-Now things get serious for the 49ers. They beefed up against weaker teams, but now they've got a three-game stretch of Packers, Ravens, Saints. It's make-or-break for San Francisco, which doesn't just have to worry about the 1-seed. They've also got the Seahawks to worry about. Green Bay and New Orleans don't play this season, but they both play San Francisco. So, yeah, this game has major implications all around. And, frankly, the Packers are a better team than the 49ers. They get the big road win and take over the NFC's No. 1 seed.
Ravens (8-2) at Rams (6-4): Baltimore-Call me crazy, but I think the Ravens might be the best team in football. They've always been all about defense, yet suddenly they're this offensive juggernaut. We'll really see they're made of when they travel cross country for a Monday night game at the LA Coliseum. Last year around this time, the Rams played the Game of the Year on a Monday night against the Chiefs. Do we have another one in store this year?
BONUS GAME--Grey Cup: Tiger-Cats vs. Blue Bombers: Hamilton-They're the only two teams that haven't won the Grey Cup in the 2000s. Hamilton last won in 1999. Winnipeg last won in 1990. That was so long ago the entire American experiment happened and failed since then...and that ended 25 years ago! Even Baltimore has won the Grey Cup more recently than Winnipeg! (Browns and Lions fans are probably thinking "cry me a river," but in a nine-team league, 20 and 29 years is even longer). Anyway, Hamilton was the dominant team in the CFL all season, so I think they cap it off by hoisting the Grey Cup and bringing the Bombers' drought to an even 30 years.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 11-3
Overall: 95-67-1
And now that we've finally reached the final week of byes, the playoff picture is going to become an even bigger focus. It's usually starting on Thanksgiving that we see the playoff standings at the end of every game involving good teams. And there are plenty of those this week. All three national games (all four including Thursday night) include at least one first-place team. In fact, the Rams are the only non-first-place team playing in prime time this week.
Thursday Night: Indianapolis (Loss)
Buccaneers (3-7) at Falcons (3-7): Atlanta-Where did this come from? After starting 1-7, the Atlanta Falcons suddenly have this dominant defense. They've only given up 12 points combined in their last two games, both wins. Now they look to make it three in a row against division rivals. Considering the fact that they play five straight in the division and six of their last eight are division games, maybe Atlanta's season isn't lost, after all. They still have no chance at winning the division, but, like the Steelers, they can at least make their record look a lot more respectable at the end.
Broncos (3-7) at Bills (7-3): Buffalo-Criticize the Bills all you want for beating up on bad teams. You can only play who's on the schedule, and those bad teams have put the Bills in a good position to make the playoffs. The tough part of their schedule is coming (at Dallas, Baltimore, at Pittsburgh, New England), but a win here gets them to 8-3 and gives them a two-game lead over seventh place in the AFC. Win here, win against Miami in Week 17, and that should be enough even if the Bills lose all four of those games.
Giants (2-8) at Bears (4-6): Giants-As the NFL celebrates its 100th season, two of the league's marquee franchises are struggling. The Giants have lost six straight, while the Bears have dropped five out of six. Chicago will be the early game on Thanksgiving, so this gives them a chance to carry some momentum into that nationally-televised contest in Detroit. I think the Giants see this as one of the few remaining winnable games on their schedule, though. The Bears' defense will give the Giants problems, but Chicago's not having an offense will be a bigger problem and the Giants snap their skid.
Steelers (5-5) at Bengals (0-10): Pittsburgh-The first time these two teams met, they were both in danger of falling into the abyss. They were both 0-3 on that Monday night and the Steelers dominated. That started Pittsburgh on a 5-2 run that has them seriously thinking playoffs. The Bengals, meanwhile, are still winless, which isn't as crazy as how badly they've been losing. They haven't even been close in most of their games! This is the Steelers' first game since the disgusting events last week in Cleveland, so we'll see if there's any carryover. Fortunately, against the Bengals, the loss of Mike Pouncey shouldn't have too much of an impact.
Dolphins (2-7) at Browns (3-6): Cleveland-Speaking of the disgusting events last week in Cleveland, Browns fans found a way to make it worse. There was actually a petition going around online seeking Myles Garrett's reinstatement that has gathered more than 60,000 signatures. Seriously??!! Did they see the guy commit assault on national television? Anyway, Garrett is rightfully suspended for the rest of the season, which severely damages the Browns' faint playoff hopes. They shouldn't need him to beat Miami, even if the Dolphins have somehow suddenly won two in a row (blowing their chances at wresting the No. 1 pick away from Cincinnati).
Panthers (5-5) at Saints (8-2): New Orleans-Cross flexing has been a thing for at least like five years, and it still confuses me. For example, Jets-Redskins was on FOX instead of CBS last week for some reason. I have no idea why. And this one was flipped to CBS as their marquee game. But that's because all of the AFC road games suck and CBS wanted at least one good game. So Panthers-Saints it is. New Orleans rebounded from that random loss to Atlanta by dominating the Bucs last week. A win here should all but wrap up the NFC South with a month to go.
Raiders (6-4) at Jets (3-7): Oakland-Don't look now, but the Oakland Raiders are right smack in the middle of the playoff race. And they can move into a wild card spot (and a first-place tie with the Chiefs) with a win over the Jets at Met Life Stadium. The weather in this area isn't supposed to be good on Sunday, but the Raiders are hot. And the Jets need to prove that they can beat an AFC team. They're 3-1 against the NFC East, 0-6 against their own conference.
Seahawks (8-2) at Eagles (5-5): Settle-It got flexed out of Sunday night, which says nothing about the quality of this game. Because this matchup has a big bearing on the NFC playoff standings. Seattle is firmly in a playoff position, while the Eagles probably have to focus on the division race. Especially if they drop this one, which would put them four games behind Seattle and give the Seahawks the tiebreaker.
Lions (3-6-1) at Redskins (1-9): Detroit-Those faint playoff chances that Detroit was clinging to are all but gone now. The Lions have dropped six out of seven, with the only win coming against the Giants. Fortunately for them, the Redskins are in the same company as the Giants. Although, I'm still not sure what this team looks like without Matthew Stafford. It's going to be a long six weeks without him one way or another. They'll get even longer if they lose to the Redskins.
Jaguars (4-6) at Titans (5-5): Tennessee-That Texans win on Thursday night had major implications on this game, too. Because the Titans haven't played Houston yet and play Indianapolis next week. So, a win over the Jaguars to get to 6-5 and keeps them right in the thick of it. A loss, though, and they're tied with Jacksonville, two games behind Houston. That's a big difference. Especially since both wild cards are wide open.
Cowboys (6-4) at Patriots (9-1): New England-Get ready to see a lot of the Dallas Cowboys. The Cowboys are the national game a lot anyway, but their next five games are all national TV affairs. Starting with a heavyweight matchup in Foxboro. The Patriots haven't lost a home game in what seems like three years and their two toughest games remaining (Dallas, Kansas City) are both at home. Dallas always shows up for games like this, though, so I think they might give New England all they can handle. In the end, though, expect Bradicheck to make it another 10-win season.
Packers (8-2) at 49ers (9-1): Green Bay-Now things get serious for the 49ers. They beefed up against weaker teams, but now they've got a three-game stretch of Packers, Ravens, Saints. It's make-or-break for San Francisco, which doesn't just have to worry about the 1-seed. They've also got the Seahawks to worry about. Green Bay and New Orleans don't play this season, but they both play San Francisco. So, yeah, this game has major implications all around. And, frankly, the Packers are a better team than the 49ers. They get the big road win and take over the NFC's No. 1 seed.
Ravens (8-2) at Rams (6-4): Baltimore-Call me crazy, but I think the Ravens might be the best team in football. They've always been all about defense, yet suddenly they're this offensive juggernaut. We'll really see they're made of when they travel cross country for a Monday night game at the LA Coliseum. Last year around this time, the Rams played the Game of the Year on a Monday night against the Chiefs. Do we have another one in store this year?
BONUS GAME--Grey Cup: Tiger-Cats vs. Blue Bombers: Hamilton-They're the only two teams that haven't won the Grey Cup in the 2000s. Hamilton last won in 1999. Winnipeg last won in 1990. That was so long ago the entire American experiment happened and failed since then...and that ended 25 years ago! Even Baltimore has won the Grey Cup more recently than Winnipeg! (Browns and Lions fans are probably thinking "cry me a river," but in a nine-team league, 20 and 29 years is even longer). Anyway, Hamilton was the dominant team in the CFL all season, so I think they cap it off by hoisting the Grey Cup and bringing the Bombers' drought to an even 30 years.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 11-3
Overall: 95-67-1
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Baseball's Sign-Stealing Villains
The Houston Astros have done a really good job of making themselves the New England Patriots of baseball. And by that I mean people don't just hate them because they're good. They're giving people a reason to dislike them, which, when you throw in the fact that they're also good (and likely will be for a while), is a bad combination.
Houston's franchise culture was already in question after their handling of former Assistant GM Brandon Taubman's profane rant directed at female reporters after the Astros' pennant-clinching win. Now there are new allegations of electronic sign stealing being made by former Astros pitcher Mike Fiers, who was with the team during their World Series run in 2017. This isn't the first time they've been accused of sign stealing, which lends a lot of credibility to Fiers' comments.
Sign stealing has always been a part of baseball. No one is disputing that, and no one has a problem with it. That's why pitchers and catchers get so paranoid whenever there's a runner on second base. The runner on second can see the catcher's signs. If he's able to figure out from that what pitch is coming and he's able to relay that message to the batter, so be it. There's nothing wrong with stealing signs the old-fashioned way. It's simply an accepted form of gamesmanship.
However, when teams steal signs by other means, that crosses the line...to the point where it's considered cheating. A few years ago, the Blue Jays were suspected of using a red light in center field that alerted their hitters to certain pitches. And in 2017, the Red Sox were fined after they were found to be using an Apple watch for electronically stealing signs in a game against the Yankees. That's the only time a team has been officially punished.
Among MLB's responses to that were instituting an eight-second delay on the TV feed shown on the dugout monitors (which are almost always from the center field camera), as well as stationing an MLB official in every team's replay room. In fact, they've added it to the rule book. So, teams are officially not permitted to steal signs by electronic means.
That evidently hasn't stopped the Astros, though. According to Fiers' account, they had a second center field camera, which was pointed directly at the catcher, that went to a TV monitor on the side of the dugout. Once they determined what pitch it was, they'd signal the hitter by banging on a garbage can. If a fastball was coming, they wouldn't make any noise. If it was a breaking ball or changeup, though, they'd make a noise loud enough for the hitter to hear.
Fiers' comments appeared in The Athletic, and several other current or former players seem to have corroborated his account. There are even three current managers (A.J. Hinch, Alex Cora and Carlos Beltran) who were with Houston in 2017 who are MLB's list of people to interview as a part of the investigation.
While the accusations are limited to the 2017 season, when the Astros beat the Dodgers in the World Series, the suspicion has persisted. There are many in the game who think the Astros' sign-stealing continued into the 2018 season, and the Yankees were vocal about Houston's whistling from the dugout and potential sign stealing during this year's ALCS. (The Astros were cleared of wrongdoing in that situation.)
Are the Astros the only team guilty here? Probably not. But they're under the most intense scrutiny. And rightfully so. Because this isn't the first time they've been connected with sign-stealing suspicion. And they were at the forefront of the modern use of video for scouting and analytic purposes. Plus, as their reluctance to fire Taubman and mishandling of that entire situation showed, they have a questionable franchise culture. Put all those things together and it's not a stretch to think that they'd be willing to stretch (or outright break) the rules in order to get ahead.
There will be an investigation, which is hopefully more thorough than the Astros' "self-investigation" of Taubman. What the results of that investigation will be are anybody's guess. But you know MLB is gonna have to do something. They have to send a message that electronic sign stealing is completely unacceptable, so the punishment needs to be more than a slap on the wrist.
If the Astros are found to be guilty, it needs to be much more than just a heavy fine. They'd deserve a fine, too, but I'm talking the loss of multiple draft picks. With the value an organization like Houston places on draft picks, you know that would be an even bigger penalty. Maybe the loss of some international bonus money, too. I wouldn't be opposed to suspensions, either. Because it's an organizational problem. And biggest message they can send would be to give some of the organization's higher-ups a time out.
Astros GM Jeff Luhnow is, of course, proclaiming the team's innocence and promising to cooperate with the MLB investigation. This is the same guy who plead ignorance with Taubman, though, so take that for what it's worth. What can't be overlooked, though, is that this is the second major revelation of (suspected) wrongdoing by the Astros organization in a few weeks. So, even if the Astros get off scott-free here, those are two clear black marks against a team that has otherwise been the model franchise of modern baseball.
Either way, these are serious allegations that need to be treated as such. And it's particularly telling that this all came to light because of the comments made by a pitcher who played for the Astros. Sure, you might question Fiers' motivations for speaking out, and you'd be perfectly justified in doing so. But, if it were simply sour grapes, why would he wait two years to say something? And why would other pitchers come out and tell similar stories? That, and the fact that they've been suspected of this before, has me thinking that there's something to all this.
What this means for baseball moving forward is just as important. In this era of advanced technology, where everybody has access to all types of video on everything, this will continue to be an issue. Unless they address it now. And show that they're serious about it. Which is why they need to come down hard on whoever's responsible. Provided the allegations turn out to be true.
Houston's franchise culture was already in question after their handling of former Assistant GM Brandon Taubman's profane rant directed at female reporters after the Astros' pennant-clinching win. Now there are new allegations of electronic sign stealing being made by former Astros pitcher Mike Fiers, who was with the team during their World Series run in 2017. This isn't the first time they've been accused of sign stealing, which lends a lot of credibility to Fiers' comments.
Sign stealing has always been a part of baseball. No one is disputing that, and no one has a problem with it. That's why pitchers and catchers get so paranoid whenever there's a runner on second base. The runner on second can see the catcher's signs. If he's able to figure out from that what pitch is coming and he's able to relay that message to the batter, so be it. There's nothing wrong with stealing signs the old-fashioned way. It's simply an accepted form of gamesmanship.
However, when teams steal signs by other means, that crosses the line...to the point where it's considered cheating. A few years ago, the Blue Jays were suspected of using a red light in center field that alerted their hitters to certain pitches. And in 2017, the Red Sox were fined after they were found to be using an Apple watch for electronically stealing signs in a game against the Yankees. That's the only time a team has been officially punished.
Among MLB's responses to that were instituting an eight-second delay on the TV feed shown on the dugout monitors (which are almost always from the center field camera), as well as stationing an MLB official in every team's replay room. In fact, they've added it to the rule book. So, teams are officially not permitted to steal signs by electronic means.
That evidently hasn't stopped the Astros, though. According to Fiers' account, they had a second center field camera, which was pointed directly at the catcher, that went to a TV monitor on the side of the dugout. Once they determined what pitch it was, they'd signal the hitter by banging on a garbage can. If a fastball was coming, they wouldn't make any noise. If it was a breaking ball or changeup, though, they'd make a noise loud enough for the hitter to hear.
Fiers' comments appeared in The Athletic, and several other current or former players seem to have corroborated his account. There are even three current managers (A.J. Hinch, Alex Cora and Carlos Beltran) who were with Houston in 2017 who are MLB's list of people to interview as a part of the investigation.
While the accusations are limited to the 2017 season, when the Astros beat the Dodgers in the World Series, the suspicion has persisted. There are many in the game who think the Astros' sign-stealing continued into the 2018 season, and the Yankees were vocal about Houston's whistling from the dugout and potential sign stealing during this year's ALCS. (The Astros were cleared of wrongdoing in that situation.)
Are the Astros the only team guilty here? Probably not. But they're under the most intense scrutiny. And rightfully so. Because this isn't the first time they've been connected with sign-stealing suspicion. And they were at the forefront of the modern use of video for scouting and analytic purposes. Plus, as their reluctance to fire Taubman and mishandling of that entire situation showed, they have a questionable franchise culture. Put all those things together and it's not a stretch to think that they'd be willing to stretch (or outright break) the rules in order to get ahead.
There will be an investigation, which is hopefully more thorough than the Astros' "self-investigation" of Taubman. What the results of that investigation will be are anybody's guess. But you know MLB is gonna have to do something. They have to send a message that electronic sign stealing is completely unacceptable, so the punishment needs to be more than a slap on the wrist.
If the Astros are found to be guilty, it needs to be much more than just a heavy fine. They'd deserve a fine, too, but I'm talking the loss of multiple draft picks. With the value an organization like Houston places on draft picks, you know that would be an even bigger penalty. Maybe the loss of some international bonus money, too. I wouldn't be opposed to suspensions, either. Because it's an organizational problem. And biggest message they can send would be to give some of the organization's higher-ups a time out.
Astros GM Jeff Luhnow is, of course, proclaiming the team's innocence and promising to cooperate with the MLB investigation. This is the same guy who plead ignorance with Taubman, though, so take that for what it's worth. What can't be overlooked, though, is that this is the second major revelation of (suspected) wrongdoing by the Astros organization in a few weeks. So, even if the Astros get off scott-free here, those are two clear black marks against a team that has otherwise been the model franchise of modern baseball.
Either way, these are serious allegations that need to be treated as such. And it's particularly telling that this all came to light because of the comments made by a pitcher who played for the Astros. Sure, you might question Fiers' motivations for speaking out, and you'd be perfectly justified in doing so. But, if it were simply sour grapes, why would he wait two years to say something? And why would other pitchers come out and tell similar stories? That, and the fact that they've been suspected of this before, has me thinking that there's something to all this.
What this means for baseball moving forward is just as important. In this era of advanced technology, where everybody has access to all types of video on everything, this will continue to be an issue. Unless they address it now. And show that they're serious about it. Which is why they need to come down hard on whoever's responsible. Provided the allegations turn out to be true.
Sunday, November 17, 2019
NFL 100: Week 11
This has been one of the most surreal weeks in the NFL that I can remember. Seriously, this week has been so crazy it's ridiculous. From the Browns-Steelers brawl to the publicity whore of a quarterback proving just how much of a clown he actually is.
The length of all three suspensions was appropriate (although I wouldn't be surprised if Pouncey's is reduced by a game). And I'm not dedicating any more space than I already have to that idiot. His latest stunt proved his real motives. He'd rather champion his "cause" and be a martyr than actually play in the NFL again (which he isn't good enough to do anyway).
At least now we can finally shift our focus back to the actual games. And I've gotta rebound after a tough week last week. Although, every team not named the Patriots has an off week during the course of the season. I guess last week was my off week.
Thursday Night: Pittsburgh (Loss)
Cowboys (5-4) at Lions (3-5-1): Dallas-Dallas really seems like two completely different teams depending on the week. Sometimes they look like Super Bowl contenders. And sometimes they lose to the Jets. So which Cowboys team will show up in Detroit? The Lions, by the way, have had similar issues. They started 2-0-1, but have only beaten the Giants since. With the Eagles playing New England, here's the Cowboys' chance to regain the edge in the NFC East.
Jaguars (4-5) at Colts (5-4): Indianapolis-Things are getting tight in the AFC South. All four teams are separated by just two games, and a Jaguar win here creates a three-way tie behind the Texans. An Indianapolis win, meanwhile, could potentially move the Colts into a tie for first heading into their Thursday night showdown in Houston. So, yeah, it's a big game for both teams. And in big games, especially division games, Indianapolis usually steps up.
Bills (6-3) at Dolphins (2-7): Buffalo-All the craziness of the past week actually worked out for Buffalo. Even after losing to the Browns, the Bills still have a one-game lead for the top AFC wild card. They need to take advantage of a matchup against the Dolphins, though. Because they've got some tough ones coming up. That win over the Jets seemed to breathe some new life into Miami, too. Although, all the Dolphins are doing there is giving themselves a worse draft pick.
Broncos (3-6) at Vikings (7-3): Minnesota-That's what I'm talking about! The Vikings didn't just look like a playoff team on Sunday night. They looked like a team that actually wants to make the playoffs. (Unlike last year when they looked completely disinterested late in the season.) This is their first time hosting the Broncos since Tim Tebow was Denver's quarterback. It's been that long. Minnesota's even thinking a division title is possible. But for that to happen, they can't lose to Denver.
Saints (7-2) at Buccaneers (3-6): New Orleans-Well, that sure was a surprise last week in Atlanta, wasn't it? The Saints laid their annual egg, and it might end up costing them come playoff time. Another division loss could be just as costly, especially against a Bucs team that is gaining momentum. And, don't forget, Tampa Bay beat New Orleans in Week 1 last year. I think New Orleans straightens things out and go to 8-2.
Jets (2-7) at Redskins (1-8): Jets-We have a game that only a mother could love as two bad teams face each other. That, unfortunately, seems to be a common theme with the AFC East (which has two bad teams) playing the NFC East (which also has two bad teams) playing each other this season. Both of the Jets' wins have come against NFC East teams, in fact. Why not make it three?
Falcons (2-7) at Panthers (5-4): Carolina-I'm shocked by what I saw last week in New Orleans. The Falcons went into that game 1-7 and dominated the 7-1 Saints from the start. It doesn't mean this isn't a lost season in Atlanta. But it was nice to see them look like an actual NFL team, if only for a week. As for the Panthers, they're sitting at 5-4, so they need as many wins as they can get if they have any hope of stealing one of the wild cards away from Minnesota or Seattle.
Texans (6-3) at Ravens (7-2): Baltimore-Without a doubt, this is the biggest game of the week in terms of playoff positioning. The winner here has the inside track at the other AFC bye. And, don't forget, the Ravens already beat the Patriots, so they're thinking 1-seed. Houston, meanwhile, has a division race to worry about, too (with Indianapolis and New England coming up). So, yeah, this is a big one. Count on Baltimore to show up big time.
Cardinals (3-6-1) at 49ers (8-1): San Francisco-San Francisco fought like hell to remain undefeated, but the Seahawks made that field goal as the clock expired in overtime and the '72 Dolphins popped the champagne. Of course, another loss (or two) seems in the offing for the 49ers, who have a brutal three-game stretch after this (Green Bay, at Baltimore, at New Orleans). And they've got the Seahawks breathing down their necks. So, slipping up against an Arizona team they should beat isn't a good idea.
Bengals (0-9) at Raiders (5-4): Oakland-In year two of Gruden 2.0, the Raiders look like they might actually have a shot at the playoffs! They could even challenge the Chiefs in the AFC West. (Wouldn't that be something, the last game in Oakland coming in the playoffs.) Either way, they're in good shape for when they head to Vegas next season. As for the Bengals, the only realistic goals they have are not finishing winless and making sure they hang on to the No. 1 overall pick. The win might be an issue here, but that helps on the No. 1 pick front.
Patriots (8-1) at Eagles (5-4): Philadelphia-New England rarely loses, so the prospect of the Patriots dropping two in a row seems really strange. Especially coming off their bye. But the Eagles are coming off a bye, too, and they've shown that they can step it up in big games. Take their Thursday night victory over the previously undefeated Packers as an example. And who can forget what happened the last time these two franchises faced each other? Nick Foles plays for the Jaguars now, so he won't be catching any touchdown passes. But are the Eagles the new Giants in that they're the one team that actually has New England's number?
Bears (4-5) at Rams (5-4): Rams-What happened to the Rams? I don't think it's Super Bowl hangover. But that offense is nowhere close to what it was last season. And now they're in desperation mode if they want to have any chance at defending their NFC title. Fortunately their Sunday night opponent is the Bears. So, even if Chicago's defense gives them trouble, the Bears' lack of an offense should work in their favor.
Chiefs (6-4) vs Chargers (4-6): Kansas City-Last season, the Chiefs were supposed to play in Mexico City, but the game was moved because of field conditions and we ended up with the game of the year being played at the LA Coliseum. This year, there are no such field issues at Estadio Azteca, so the game will be played as scheduled. And the Chiefs find themselves in a position where they suddenly have to worry about the division. Especially if they don't win it. They've had some stumbles this season, but the Chargers have had their share of stumbles, too. So it could simply come down to the fact that Kansas City's the better team.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 5-8
Overall: 84-64-1
The length of all three suspensions was appropriate (although I wouldn't be surprised if Pouncey's is reduced by a game). And I'm not dedicating any more space than I already have to that idiot. His latest stunt proved his real motives. He'd rather champion his "cause" and be a martyr than actually play in the NFL again (which he isn't good enough to do anyway).
At least now we can finally shift our focus back to the actual games. And I've gotta rebound after a tough week last week. Although, every team not named the Patriots has an off week during the course of the season. I guess last week was my off week.
Thursday Night: Pittsburgh (Loss)
Cowboys (5-4) at Lions (3-5-1): Dallas-Dallas really seems like two completely different teams depending on the week. Sometimes they look like Super Bowl contenders. And sometimes they lose to the Jets. So which Cowboys team will show up in Detroit? The Lions, by the way, have had similar issues. They started 2-0-1, but have only beaten the Giants since. With the Eagles playing New England, here's the Cowboys' chance to regain the edge in the NFC East.
Jaguars (4-5) at Colts (5-4): Indianapolis-Things are getting tight in the AFC South. All four teams are separated by just two games, and a Jaguar win here creates a three-way tie behind the Texans. An Indianapolis win, meanwhile, could potentially move the Colts into a tie for first heading into their Thursday night showdown in Houston. So, yeah, it's a big game for both teams. And in big games, especially division games, Indianapolis usually steps up.
Bills (6-3) at Dolphins (2-7): Buffalo-All the craziness of the past week actually worked out for Buffalo. Even after losing to the Browns, the Bills still have a one-game lead for the top AFC wild card. They need to take advantage of a matchup against the Dolphins, though. Because they've got some tough ones coming up. That win over the Jets seemed to breathe some new life into Miami, too. Although, all the Dolphins are doing there is giving themselves a worse draft pick.
Broncos (3-6) at Vikings (7-3): Minnesota-That's what I'm talking about! The Vikings didn't just look like a playoff team on Sunday night. They looked like a team that actually wants to make the playoffs. (Unlike last year when they looked completely disinterested late in the season.) This is their first time hosting the Broncos since Tim Tebow was Denver's quarterback. It's been that long. Minnesota's even thinking a division title is possible. But for that to happen, they can't lose to Denver.
Saints (7-2) at Buccaneers (3-6): New Orleans-Well, that sure was a surprise last week in Atlanta, wasn't it? The Saints laid their annual egg, and it might end up costing them come playoff time. Another division loss could be just as costly, especially against a Bucs team that is gaining momentum. And, don't forget, Tampa Bay beat New Orleans in Week 1 last year. I think New Orleans straightens things out and go to 8-2.
Jets (2-7) at Redskins (1-8): Jets-We have a game that only a mother could love as two bad teams face each other. That, unfortunately, seems to be a common theme with the AFC East (which has two bad teams) playing the NFC East (which also has two bad teams) playing each other this season. Both of the Jets' wins have come against NFC East teams, in fact. Why not make it three?
Falcons (2-7) at Panthers (5-4): Carolina-I'm shocked by what I saw last week in New Orleans. The Falcons went into that game 1-7 and dominated the 7-1 Saints from the start. It doesn't mean this isn't a lost season in Atlanta. But it was nice to see them look like an actual NFL team, if only for a week. As for the Panthers, they're sitting at 5-4, so they need as many wins as they can get if they have any hope of stealing one of the wild cards away from Minnesota or Seattle.
Texans (6-3) at Ravens (7-2): Baltimore-Without a doubt, this is the biggest game of the week in terms of playoff positioning. The winner here has the inside track at the other AFC bye. And, don't forget, the Ravens already beat the Patriots, so they're thinking 1-seed. Houston, meanwhile, has a division race to worry about, too (with Indianapolis and New England coming up). So, yeah, this is a big one. Count on Baltimore to show up big time.
Cardinals (3-6-1) at 49ers (8-1): San Francisco-San Francisco fought like hell to remain undefeated, but the Seahawks made that field goal as the clock expired in overtime and the '72 Dolphins popped the champagne. Of course, another loss (or two) seems in the offing for the 49ers, who have a brutal three-game stretch after this (Green Bay, at Baltimore, at New Orleans). And they've got the Seahawks breathing down their necks. So, slipping up against an Arizona team they should beat isn't a good idea.
Bengals (0-9) at Raiders (5-4): Oakland-In year two of Gruden 2.0, the Raiders look like they might actually have a shot at the playoffs! They could even challenge the Chiefs in the AFC West. (Wouldn't that be something, the last game in Oakland coming in the playoffs.) Either way, they're in good shape for when they head to Vegas next season. As for the Bengals, the only realistic goals they have are not finishing winless and making sure they hang on to the No. 1 overall pick. The win might be an issue here, but that helps on the No. 1 pick front.
Patriots (8-1) at Eagles (5-4): Philadelphia-New England rarely loses, so the prospect of the Patriots dropping two in a row seems really strange. Especially coming off their bye. But the Eagles are coming off a bye, too, and they've shown that they can step it up in big games. Take their Thursday night victory over the previously undefeated Packers as an example. And who can forget what happened the last time these two franchises faced each other? Nick Foles plays for the Jaguars now, so he won't be catching any touchdown passes. But are the Eagles the new Giants in that they're the one team that actually has New England's number?
Bears (4-5) at Rams (5-4): Rams-What happened to the Rams? I don't think it's Super Bowl hangover. But that offense is nowhere close to what it was last season. And now they're in desperation mode if they want to have any chance at defending their NFC title. Fortunately their Sunday night opponent is the Bears. So, even if Chicago's defense gives them trouble, the Bears' lack of an offense should work in their favor.
Chiefs (6-4) vs Chargers (4-6): Kansas City-Last season, the Chiefs were supposed to play in Mexico City, but the game was moved because of field conditions and we ended up with the game of the year being played at the LA Coliseum. This year, there are no such field issues at Estadio Azteca, so the game will be played as scheduled. And the Chiefs find themselves in a position where they suddenly have to worry about the division. Especially if they don't win it. They've had some stumbles this season, but the Chargers have had their share of stumbles, too. So it could simply come down to the fact that Kansas City's the better team.
This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 5-8
Overall: 84-64-1
Thursday, November 14, 2019
Bregman's Not the Anti-Trout, He's the MVP
It's not called the "Mike Trout Award." It's called the "American League Most Valuable Player." It's gotten so ridiculous that we have to have this same conversation every year! Just because he's the best player in baseball doesn't mean he should automatically be MVP every year. The Angels finished fourth in the AL West. They just as easily could've finished fourth without him.
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Mike Trout. I think he's a great player and I enjoy watching him. But the obsession with Trout and his WAR is really starting to border on absurd! WAR is a made-up stat! And it's NOT the only thing that determine's a player's value! (And don't get me started on the whole "Trout passed all these Hall of Famers in career WAR this year" argument. It's a cumulative total for some reason, so it's only gonna keep going up!)
What really got me, though, was the one writer who described Alex Bregman's legitimate MVP candidacy as "let's give it to anybody but Mike Trout." Please! There are plenty of reasons to vote for Bregman beyond the fact that he isn't Trout. And, frankly, it's insulting to those who voted for Bregman to suggest that the only reason they did so was to give the award to someone else. Is that why everyone voted for Mookie Betts last year, too?
There are a myriad of reasons why Bregman deserves to be the AL MVP. Bregman played Gold Glove-caliber third base...when he wasn't filling in at shortstop! He was also the best hitter in a lineup full of All*Stars...on a team that won 107 games. Oh, and he hit 41 homers and drove in 112 runs while playing 156 games. He also finished third in the AL in OPS (another one of my "favorite" stats). His WAR was better than Trout's, too. Still think he's just the anti-Trout candidate?
Yes, Trout had perhaps his best season offensively. Yes, he's had a remarkable eight-year run where's he's finished in the top three of MVP voting every time. But I find it very easy to believe that he's only won the award twice. Because he's putting up these numbers on an Angels team that's irrelevant. And, sorry, but playing on a winning team matters. Which is why the legitimate MVP contenders on teams playing games that matter have been winning the award. Not just because they're "not Mike Trout."
I've also had a lot of conversations with people about the fact that Marcus Semien finished third over DJ LeMahieu. It doesn't really surprise me, though. Because LeMahieu's contributions to the Yankees went unheralded all year. And people couldn't get enough of Seimen, who had his best year, both offensively and defensively. He was also the only player in baseball to start all 162 games. Did Semien have a better year than LeMahieu? I don't think so. But Yankee bias probably struck again, which knocked LeMahieu off the podium and into fourth place.
As for the rest of the 10-deep in the AL MVP vote, I think it could be heavy on Houston Astros. Because in addition to Bregman and the two pitchers, you've got George Springer and Michael Brantley. There's also a pair of Red Sox (Xander Bogaerts and Rafael Devers), and Twins DH Nelson Cruz, whose OPS was actually between Trout's and Bregman's. Even the Royals' Jorge Soler put up numbers worthy of MVP votes (which is different than being worthy of the award).
My Ballot: 1. Bregman, 2. Trout, 3. LeMahieu, 4. Springer, 5. Seimen, 6. Brantley, 7. Cruz, 8. Bogaerts, 9. Gerrit Cole, 10. Devers
Over in the NL, it was the Beli vs. Yeli Show all season. They even did those awesome commercials! And, frankly, there wasn't much to separate Cody Bellinger and Christian Yelich. I'd be OK with either one winning. Anthony Rendon put up MVP-caliber numbers, as well, and is a very strong third-place finisher.
Let's start by comparing their numbers, which are very close across the board. Yelich lead the league in hitting (.329). Bellinger was ninth (.305). Bellinger hit 47 homers. Yelich hit 44. Bellinger also finished with more RBIs, 115-97. They went 1-2 in OPS (Yelich 1, Bellinger 2), and Bellinger was second in the NL with 121 runs scored. And both the Dodgers and Brewers made the playoffs, so even that can't be used to separate them.
So who has the edge? I'd say it's Bellinger ever so slightly. I was leaning in that direction even before Yelich got hurt, but those final three weeks of the season when Yelich was injured is what put Bellinger over the top. Yes, that's a little unfair to Yelich. But, I think it was Dodgers manager Dave Roberts who actually summed Bellinger's candidacy the best: "He's the best player on the best team." When the race is this tight, that can make all the difference.
You've gotta feel for Rendon, too. Because in any other year, we might be talking about him as a runaway winner. No longer playing second-fiddle to Bryce Harper in Washington, he had a breakout season that earned him a whole lot of money in free agency this winter. Rendon led the NL in RBIs (126) and doubles (44); finished third in hitting (.319), runs scored (117) and OPS (1.010); and played some of the best third base this side of Nolan Arenado. The Nationals are all about their starting pitching, but they don't make the playoffs, let alone win the World Series, without Rendon.
Speaking of Arenado, he did his usual thing again this year (.315-41-118) and should see plenty of lower-ballot support. It was a great year for third basemen all around, actually. Because Eugenio Suarez of the Reds finished with 49 homers and 103 RBIs. I'm not saying Suarez is worthy of a spot on the MVP ballot. But those numbers are excellent.
Atlanta's terrific trio of Freddie Freeman, Ronald Acuna, Jr., and Ozzie Albies should get some love, too, and so should Rookie of the Year Pete Alonso. He did lead the Majors in homers and finish third in the NL in RBIs, too. Alonso will likely have the highest MVP finish by a rookie since Aaron Judge was second in the AL two years ago. (Sidebar, it's funny how there's a bias against the Yankees that doesn't extend to the Mets. In fact, it tends to go the other way with the Mets. See Jacob deGrom's back-to-back Cy Youngs.)
Other guys who had good years on non-playoff teams include Arizona's Ketel Marte and Eduardo Escobar, Pittsburgh's Josh Bell, the Cubs' Javy Baez, and even Bryce Harper. His first year in Philadelphia was a disappointment. He'd be the first to admit that. But it wasn't entirely his fault. Harper did his part with 35 homers and 114 RBIs, even if he only hit .260. Not worth $330 million, though. A lot of people sure got a certain amount of satisfaction in watching the Nationals win the World Series without him, too.
My Ballot: 1. Bellinger, 2. Yelich, 3. Rendon, 4. Alonso, 5. Freeman, 6. Arenado, 7. Marte, 8. Acuna, 9. Hyun-Jin Ryu, 10. Albies
Don't get me wrong. I have nothing against Mike Trout. I think he's a great player and I enjoy watching him. But the obsession with Trout and his WAR is really starting to border on absurd! WAR is a made-up stat! And it's NOT the only thing that determine's a player's value! (And don't get me started on the whole "Trout passed all these Hall of Famers in career WAR this year" argument. It's a cumulative total for some reason, so it's only gonna keep going up!)
What really got me, though, was the one writer who described Alex Bregman's legitimate MVP candidacy as "let's give it to anybody but Mike Trout." Please! There are plenty of reasons to vote for Bregman beyond the fact that he isn't Trout. And, frankly, it's insulting to those who voted for Bregman to suggest that the only reason they did so was to give the award to someone else. Is that why everyone voted for Mookie Betts last year, too?
There are a myriad of reasons why Bregman deserves to be the AL MVP. Bregman played Gold Glove-caliber third base...when he wasn't filling in at shortstop! He was also the best hitter in a lineup full of All*Stars...on a team that won 107 games. Oh, and he hit 41 homers and drove in 112 runs while playing 156 games. He also finished third in the AL in OPS (another one of my "favorite" stats). His WAR was better than Trout's, too. Still think he's just the anti-Trout candidate?
Yes, Trout had perhaps his best season offensively. Yes, he's had a remarkable eight-year run where's he's finished in the top three of MVP voting every time. But I find it very easy to believe that he's only won the award twice. Because he's putting up these numbers on an Angels team that's irrelevant. And, sorry, but playing on a winning team matters. Which is why the legitimate MVP contenders on teams playing games that matter have been winning the award. Not just because they're "not Mike Trout."
I've also had a lot of conversations with people about the fact that Marcus Semien finished third over DJ LeMahieu. It doesn't really surprise me, though. Because LeMahieu's contributions to the Yankees went unheralded all year. And people couldn't get enough of Seimen, who had his best year, both offensively and defensively. He was also the only player in baseball to start all 162 games. Did Semien have a better year than LeMahieu? I don't think so. But Yankee bias probably struck again, which knocked LeMahieu off the podium and into fourth place.
As for the rest of the 10-deep in the AL MVP vote, I think it could be heavy on Houston Astros. Because in addition to Bregman and the two pitchers, you've got George Springer and Michael Brantley. There's also a pair of Red Sox (Xander Bogaerts and Rafael Devers), and Twins DH Nelson Cruz, whose OPS was actually between Trout's and Bregman's. Even the Royals' Jorge Soler put up numbers worthy of MVP votes (which is different than being worthy of the award).
My Ballot: 1. Bregman, 2. Trout, 3. LeMahieu, 4. Springer, 5. Seimen, 6. Brantley, 7. Cruz, 8. Bogaerts, 9. Gerrit Cole, 10. Devers
Over in the NL, it was the Beli vs. Yeli Show all season. They even did those awesome commercials! And, frankly, there wasn't much to separate Cody Bellinger and Christian Yelich. I'd be OK with either one winning. Anthony Rendon put up MVP-caliber numbers, as well, and is a very strong third-place finisher.
Let's start by comparing their numbers, which are very close across the board. Yelich lead the league in hitting (.329). Bellinger was ninth (.305). Bellinger hit 47 homers. Yelich hit 44. Bellinger also finished with more RBIs, 115-97. They went 1-2 in OPS (Yelich 1, Bellinger 2), and Bellinger was second in the NL with 121 runs scored. And both the Dodgers and Brewers made the playoffs, so even that can't be used to separate them.
So who has the edge? I'd say it's Bellinger ever so slightly. I was leaning in that direction even before Yelich got hurt, but those final three weeks of the season when Yelich was injured is what put Bellinger over the top. Yes, that's a little unfair to Yelich. But, I think it was Dodgers manager Dave Roberts who actually summed Bellinger's candidacy the best: "He's the best player on the best team." When the race is this tight, that can make all the difference.
You've gotta feel for Rendon, too. Because in any other year, we might be talking about him as a runaway winner. No longer playing second-fiddle to Bryce Harper in Washington, he had a breakout season that earned him a whole lot of money in free agency this winter. Rendon led the NL in RBIs (126) and doubles (44); finished third in hitting (.319), runs scored (117) and OPS (1.010); and played some of the best third base this side of Nolan Arenado. The Nationals are all about their starting pitching, but they don't make the playoffs, let alone win the World Series, without Rendon.
Speaking of Arenado, he did his usual thing again this year (.315-41-118) and should see plenty of lower-ballot support. It was a great year for third basemen all around, actually. Because Eugenio Suarez of the Reds finished with 49 homers and 103 RBIs. I'm not saying Suarez is worthy of a spot on the MVP ballot. But those numbers are excellent.
Atlanta's terrific trio of Freddie Freeman, Ronald Acuna, Jr., and Ozzie Albies should get some love, too, and so should Rookie of the Year Pete Alonso. He did lead the Majors in homers and finish third in the NL in RBIs, too. Alonso will likely have the highest MVP finish by a rookie since Aaron Judge was second in the AL two years ago. (Sidebar, it's funny how there's a bias against the Yankees that doesn't extend to the Mets. In fact, it tends to go the other way with the Mets. See Jacob deGrom's back-to-back Cy Youngs.)
Other guys who had good years on non-playoff teams include Arizona's Ketel Marte and Eduardo Escobar, Pittsburgh's Josh Bell, the Cubs' Javy Baez, and even Bryce Harper. His first year in Philadelphia was a disappointment. He'd be the first to admit that. But it wasn't entirely his fault. Harper did his part with 35 homers and 114 RBIs, even if he only hit .260. Not worth $330 million, though. A lot of people sure got a certain amount of satisfaction in watching the Nationals win the World Series without him, too.
My Ballot: 1. Bellinger, 2. Yelich, 3. Rendon, 4. Alonso, 5. Freeman, 6. Arenado, 7. Marte, 8. Acuna, 9. Hyun-Jin Ryu, 10. Albies
Wednesday, November 13, 2019
Which Astro? And Who In the NL?
During the award nomination show on MLB Network, the analysts spent a good amount of time discussing the Cy Young. Specifically, what criteria should be valued the most when it comes to Cy Young voting. And it mainly came down to wins. That, of course, has been a subject of debate for a few years, ever since the sabermetric crew and their "wins don't matter" mindset infiltrated baseball. My answer to them is the same as it always has been, "If wins don't matter, why do we keep score?"
Jacob deGrom was at the heart of this wins debate last year, when he deservedly won the NL Cy Young despite winning just 10 games for a Mets team that didn't score any runs for him. Well, de Grom won 11 games this year and is a finalist again. So, if he wins again, he'll have won back-to-back Cy Youngs despite posting just 21 combined wins in those two seasons. Justin Verlander had 21 wins this season.
Leave it to Ron Darling, one of the best analysts in all of baseball, to bring up the most logical point in the entire argument. I don't remember what he said exactly, but his basic point was that it all comes down to innings. Guys who throw more innings are going to get more wins (and losses) because they're in the game longer. Thus, they have a greater impact on the game. He also predicted that the overreliance on relievers over the past few years will cycle back around. Because if your best pitchers are your starters, wouldn't you want those guys pitching the most innings? (Darling also stated the obvious fact that wins very much DO matter to pitchers.)
While he wasn't as dominant in 2019, deGrom was still arguably the best pitcher in the National League this season. He led the league in strikeouts and WHIP, was second in ERA, third in innings and fourth in batting average against. But the wins, once again, are the big sticking point. Last year, they gave it to him because of how dominant he was in every other category. And the fact that he was by far the best pitcher in the National League. Will the voters do that again? Especially since he wasn't the dominant pitcher in the NL this season?
That dominant pitcher was the Dodgers' Hyun-Jin Ryu. He hit a little bit of a rut in August, which brought down his overall season numbers. But his other five months were extraordinary. Ryu started the All*Star Game and carried a Dodgers rotation that was hit hard by injuries throughout the first half. His ERA was under 2.00 for a while, and it finished at a league-leading 2.32. Other than a 1.01 WHIP, Ryu didn't have numbers that jump off the page. But he was a model of consistency all season, as the best pitcher on the best team.
Max Scherzer likely couldn't care less if he wins the Cy Young this year. Because he got a prize that was much more valuable. But it speaks to how consistently excellent Max Scherzer is that he missed a good amount of time in the second half and still finished third in the league in strikeouts, fourth in WHIP and sixth in ERA.
And, since Cy Young voting goes five deep, it's worth mentioning some of the other candidates who finished somewhere between fourth and 10th. Like World Series MVP Stephen Strasburg, who made 33 regular season starts and went 18-6 with a 3.32 ERA and 251 strikeouts in a league-high 209 innings. Or how about Rookie of the Year runner-up Mike Soroka, who emerged as the Braves' ace, going 13-4 with a 2.68 ERA? Then there's the Cardinals' Jack Flaherty, who also went just 11-8, but had a 0.97 WHIP and held opponents to a .192 batting average.
My Ballot: 1. Ryu, 2. deGrom, 3. Strasburg, 4. Scherzer, 5. Soroka
Over in the AL, it's a battle between the Astros' dual aces. There's really very little to separate Justin Verlander's season from Gerrit Cole's, so we might as well look at them together. They were the only two 20-game winners in baseball, going a combined 41-11. Houston won 107 games, and the two of them combined to win nearly 40 percent of them. They also both had 300 strikeouts, went 1-2 in WHIP, and both held their opponents to an average in the .180s.
Verlander gave up a ton of home runs, but they were mainly solo shots. He only gave up 66 runs all season, 36 of which came on homers. And he only gave up 101 hits that weren't homers. Verlander's 0.80 WHIP was the second-best in baseball history, and he threw his third career no-hitter in Toronto. He also recorded his 3,000th career strikeout. That milestone has no bearing on Cy Young, obviously, but puts a nice little bow on Verlander's season. His career renaissance since being traded to Houston really is remarkable.
Cole will likely not be on the Astros next season. But his final year in Houston was pretty special. After starting the season 4-5, the Astros didn't lose one of his starts again until Game 1 of the World Series. He ended the season by going 16-0 over his final 22 starts, and Houston won his final 13 regular season starts. Cole finished with a ridiculous 326 strikeouts (in just 212.1 innings), including 21 double-digit strikeout games.
While it's tight, I think I'd give the slight edge to Cole because of that 16-0 stretch to end the season. Which takes nothing away from what Verlander did this year. In fact, if there's any year where a tie would seem almost fitting, it would be this year. Especially because the two front runners are teammates.
The third-place finisher in the AL Cy Young race is a former Astro--Charlie Morton. Tampa Bay had the reigning Cy Young winner in Blake Snell, but Morton turned out to be the most valuable pitcher on their staff. In a career year where he made 33 starts, Morton went 16-6, struck out 240 and had an ERA of 3.05. On the team that loves its "openers," Morton tossed nearly 200 innings.
Among the other names who likely got a good amount of support is All*Star MVP Shane Bieber of Cleveland. This guy's just a great story. On a staff that included Corey Kluber, Trevor Bauer and Carlos Carrasco at the start of the season, Bieber emerged as the Indians' ace. He ended up 15-8, was third in the AL in strikeouts, and finished fourth in ERA. Frankly, I'd probably rank Bieber ahead of Morton.
Eduardo Rodriguez of the Red Sox had 19 wins, which can't be ignored. Domingo German's domestic violence suspension put a damper on his great season. As a result, I don't see him getting any Cy Young votes (if any at all). But still, he went 18-4 and carried the Yankees' rotation for the first four months of the season. Special shout out to Lucas Giolito, too. He had the worst ERA in the American League last season. This season, he finished fifth at 3.41. He was also third in opponents' average, fifth in ERA and seventh in strikeouts. It was enough to make him a finalist for Comeback Player of the Year, and it probably got Giolito some Cy Young votes, too.
My Ballot: 1. Cole, 2. Verlander, 3. Bieber, 4. Morton, 5. Giolito
Tuesday, November 12, 2019
It Should Be Clear Cut, But It Isn't
If Aaron Boone isn't the AL Manager of the Year, it'll be a bigger joke than Shohei Ohtani winning Rookie of the Year over Miguel Andujar last season. Yes, there may be some Yankee bias here. But there's usually Yankee bias the other way when it comes to awards, especially Manager of the Year. Which is why a Yankee manager hasn't won the award since Joe Torre in 1998.
The thought process, which is incredibly flawed, is that managing the Yankees is "easy" because of their resources. Never mind that with those resources come outsized expectations. Every. Single. Year. I think that's something that makes winning Manager of the Year an uphill battle for whoever the Yankees' manager is. The winner is usually the manager of a team that exceeded expectations. It's frequently the team that comes out of nowhere to make the playoffs (like the other two AL finalists). Which is extremely unfair not just to the Yankees, but the Astros, the Dodgers, and all the other teams that were expected to do well this season.
However, if you were to take the Yankee logo off his stats and did a blind side-by-side comparison with anybody else, he'd be the winner hands down. Yes, the Yankees have a large payroll. Yes, they were supposed to be one of the best teams in baseball, and that's exactly what they were. But it's how they did it. That's why I don't think there should even be a discussion.
They won 103 games and their first division title in seven years despite seemingly the entire team spending a significant amount of time on the injured list. Talk about the Yankees' payroll all you want, the number of injuries this team had to deal with was ridiculous. Every single player in the Opening Day lineup had at least one IL stint. Some were lengthy. Then their backups got hurt, too. The Yankees were down to third-stringers and guys they were signing off the street. In total, they used 53 players over the course of the season and had a Major League-record 30 players (which is five more than an active roster) make trips to the IL.
Yet whoever was in there produced. And it was because Aaron Boone pushed all the right buttons. He had his guys' backs (hence the now-famous "Savages in the box" comment). Which is how, despite everything, they won 100 games for the second straight year, making him the first manager in history to begin his career with two straight 100-win seasons.
What's funny, too, is that people are using a very similar argument for why Tampa Bay's Kevin Cash should win. It's the whole "he did more with less" argument. And, yes, it's true that the Rays' Opening Day payroll was one of the lowest in the Majors. But I don't know how that's Aaron Boone's fault. And you can't point to Tampa Bay's use of 57 players when the Yankees dealt with just as many injuries (for longer periods, to more significant players). Yes, the Rays won 96 games. That was seven less than Boone's Yankees.
Rocco Baldelli, a former Ray, led Minnesota to 100 wins as a first-year manager. It was quite a turnaround for the Twins, who set a Major League record with 307 home runs. It was a fine season, and he's a deserving third-place finisher. But this is a race between Boone and Cash.
My Ballot: 1. Boone, 2. Cash, 3. Baldelli
In the National League, something's that never happened to me before happened this year. My Manager of the Year isn't one of the three finalists. It's Dave Martinez of the World Series champion Nationals.
I know he obviously didn't actually win, but I don't think any National League manager did anything close to the type of job Martinez did this season. Washington was 19-31 after 50 games. Yet Martinez didn't panic. He was patient, waiting for guys to return from injury. After those guys came back, the Nationals were one of the best teams in the Majors. They finished 74-38 and made the playoffs as the top wild card. We all know what happened from there. Even though the voting was conducted before the playoffs and none of that counts. But, still, he went from almost fired in May to hoisting the Commissioner's Trophy in October.
Even though he has my non-existent "vote," Dave Martinez is not the NL Manager of the Year. It's either Craig Counsell of the Brewers, Mike Schildt of the Cardinals or Atlanta's Brian Snitker, who's a finalist for the second straight year. And, frankly, I have no idea who's going to win. It appears to be a battle between the two managers from the NL Central, though.
Counsell's seen as the front-runner and probably won, mainly because of what he did in September to guide the Brewers into the playoffs for the second straight year. And they got there by going 20-7 in September after entering the month just 69-66. Oh, and they did that despite Christian Yelich missing the last three weeks of the season with a broken hand. None of that stopped Milwaukee's march to the playoffs, though. Which is similar to what they did last September. During the nomination show on MLB Network, one of them noted what Counsell can do with the expanded September roster. We'll see if he can do it again next year, when he won't have 20 pitchers at his disposal.
Mike Schildt, meanwhile, guided the Cardinals to their first division title in four years. This despite having a team that, on paper, was probably the third-best in the NL Central entering the season. They don't have the talent of either the Brewers or the Cubs, yet they finished ahead of Milwaukee and essentially knocked their archrivals out with a four-game sweep at Wrigley in September. All they've done since Schildt took over in the middle of last season is win.
Which can also be said about Brian Snitker's Braves. He won the award last year and guided Atlanta to another division title this season. This in an NL East that figured to be one of the most competitive divisions in baseball. Yet the Braves seized control of it in May and never looked back. They've got a lot of talent, but Snitker figured out how to harness it into 97 wins. This despite not really having a starting rotation other than Mike Soroka until they signed Dallas Keuchel in June.
Winning Manager of the Year in back-to-back years is hard, though. And, frankly, I don't even think Snitker did the best job in his own division (again, I think that was Martinez). Which is why I think he finished third here. My guess is Counsell won. Although, if I had to choose between just those three, I'd probably go with Schildt.
My Ballot: 1. Martinez, 2. Schildt, 3. Counsell
The thought process, which is incredibly flawed, is that managing the Yankees is "easy" because of their resources. Never mind that with those resources come outsized expectations. Every. Single. Year. I think that's something that makes winning Manager of the Year an uphill battle for whoever the Yankees' manager is. The winner is usually the manager of a team that exceeded expectations. It's frequently the team that comes out of nowhere to make the playoffs (like the other two AL finalists). Which is extremely unfair not just to the Yankees, but the Astros, the Dodgers, and all the other teams that were expected to do well this season.
However, if you were to take the Yankee logo off his stats and did a blind side-by-side comparison with anybody else, he'd be the winner hands down. Yes, the Yankees have a large payroll. Yes, they were supposed to be one of the best teams in baseball, and that's exactly what they were. But it's how they did it. That's why I don't think there should even be a discussion.
They won 103 games and their first division title in seven years despite seemingly the entire team spending a significant amount of time on the injured list. Talk about the Yankees' payroll all you want, the number of injuries this team had to deal with was ridiculous. Every single player in the Opening Day lineup had at least one IL stint. Some were lengthy. Then their backups got hurt, too. The Yankees were down to third-stringers and guys they were signing off the street. In total, they used 53 players over the course of the season and had a Major League-record 30 players (which is five more than an active roster) make trips to the IL.
Yet whoever was in there produced. And it was because Aaron Boone pushed all the right buttons. He had his guys' backs (hence the now-famous "Savages in the box" comment). Which is how, despite everything, they won 100 games for the second straight year, making him the first manager in history to begin his career with two straight 100-win seasons.
What's funny, too, is that people are using a very similar argument for why Tampa Bay's Kevin Cash should win. It's the whole "he did more with less" argument. And, yes, it's true that the Rays' Opening Day payroll was one of the lowest in the Majors. But I don't know how that's Aaron Boone's fault. And you can't point to Tampa Bay's use of 57 players when the Yankees dealt with just as many injuries (for longer periods, to more significant players). Yes, the Rays won 96 games. That was seven less than Boone's Yankees.
Rocco Baldelli, a former Ray, led Minnesota to 100 wins as a first-year manager. It was quite a turnaround for the Twins, who set a Major League record with 307 home runs. It was a fine season, and he's a deserving third-place finisher. But this is a race between Boone and Cash.
My Ballot: 1. Boone, 2. Cash, 3. Baldelli
In the National League, something's that never happened to me before happened this year. My Manager of the Year isn't one of the three finalists. It's Dave Martinez of the World Series champion Nationals.
I know he obviously didn't actually win, but I don't think any National League manager did anything close to the type of job Martinez did this season. Washington was 19-31 after 50 games. Yet Martinez didn't panic. He was patient, waiting for guys to return from injury. After those guys came back, the Nationals were one of the best teams in the Majors. They finished 74-38 and made the playoffs as the top wild card. We all know what happened from there. Even though the voting was conducted before the playoffs and none of that counts. But, still, he went from almost fired in May to hoisting the Commissioner's Trophy in October.
Even though he has my non-existent "vote," Dave Martinez is not the NL Manager of the Year. It's either Craig Counsell of the Brewers, Mike Schildt of the Cardinals or Atlanta's Brian Snitker, who's a finalist for the second straight year. And, frankly, I have no idea who's going to win. It appears to be a battle between the two managers from the NL Central, though.
Counsell's seen as the front-runner and probably won, mainly because of what he did in September to guide the Brewers into the playoffs for the second straight year. And they got there by going 20-7 in September after entering the month just 69-66. Oh, and they did that despite Christian Yelich missing the last three weeks of the season with a broken hand. None of that stopped Milwaukee's march to the playoffs, though. Which is similar to what they did last September. During the nomination show on MLB Network, one of them noted what Counsell can do with the expanded September roster. We'll see if he can do it again next year, when he won't have 20 pitchers at his disposal.
Mike Schildt, meanwhile, guided the Cardinals to their first division title in four years. This despite having a team that, on paper, was probably the third-best in the NL Central entering the season. They don't have the talent of either the Brewers or the Cubs, yet they finished ahead of Milwaukee and essentially knocked their archrivals out with a four-game sweep at Wrigley in September. All they've done since Schildt took over in the middle of last season is win.
Which can also be said about Brian Snitker's Braves. He won the award last year and guided Atlanta to another division title this season. This in an NL East that figured to be one of the most competitive divisions in baseball. Yet the Braves seized control of it in May and never looked back. They've got a lot of talent, but Snitker figured out how to harness it into 97 wins. This despite not really having a starting rotation other than Mike Soroka until they signed Dallas Keuchel in June.
Winning Manager of the Year in back-to-back years is hard, though. And, frankly, I don't even think Snitker did the best job in his own division (again, I think that was Martinez). Which is why I think he finished third here. My guess is Counsell won. Although, if I had to choose between just those three, I'd probably go with Schildt.
My Ballot: 1. Martinez, 2. Schildt, 3. Counsell
Monday, November 11, 2019
A Polar Bear and a Beast
Major League Baseball always starts award season with the Rookie of the Year. I can see why. It builds up the excitement for the more prestigious awards (Cy Young and MVP), and, for the most part, Rookie of the Year is usually the easy one. You have the rare occurrence where there's an actual Rookie of the Year race like there was in the AL last year. But you usually know who the Rookie of the Year is most likely going to be well before the season is over.
That was certainly the case this year. There's no suspense heading into the announcement. We know who won. The only question is whether or not they were both unanimous. In the AL, I think it probably is. In the NL, I'm not sure. Even though Pete Alonso had a historic rookie season and will be the winner, there was an overall strong crop of rookies in the National League, so I wouldn't be surprised if Fernando Tatis, Jr., snagged a first-place vote or two.
For most of the season, people were talking about the Alonso-Tatis Rookie of the Year "race" as if there actually was one. Call it New York bias if you want, but I never believed that. Even if Tatis had been healthy the entire year, Alonso deserves to be the runaway winner. Frankly, he deserves for it to be unanimous. Just like it was for Aaron Judge two years ago, when he was also the runner-up for AL MVP.
Judge hit 52 home runs in 2017. Alonso hit 53 in 2019. That led the National League and was also the Mets' franchise record. He was on the Mets' Opening Day roster and led Major League rookies in every major offensive category you can think of. And, while this has no bearing on the Rookie of the Year, Alonso made the All*Star Team and won the Home Run Derby. He's one of those force-of-nature rookies who takes his team and city by storm from the second he arrives. I mean, it took, what? a week? for him to be dubbed the "Polar Bear."
None of which takes anything away from Fernando Tatis, Jr., who's much more than just the son of the guy who hit two grand slams in one inning. With all this talk about service time and keeping Major League-ready rookies in Triple A, Tatis was the Padres' Opening Day shortstop at the ripe old age of 20. He'll be a foundation in San Diego for years to come. I can only imagine what his numbers would've looked like had he played the entire season! Because what he did in half a year was mighty impressive!
Then there's Mike Soroka, who would be an incredibly strong candidate (and maybe even the favorite) in any other year. He's the only one of the three who appeared in the postseason, and he's one of the big reasons why the Braves won the division. Soroka was steady in the rotation all season, made the All*Star Team, and finished third in the NL with a 2.68 ERA. And he was just as good in September as he was in April.
My NL Ballot: 1. Alonso, 2. Soroka, 3. Tatis
When I gave out my midseason awards at the All*Star Break, I had Michael Chavis of the Red Sox pegged as the AL Rookie of the Half-Year. At that point in the season, Yordan Alvarez had been in the Majors for less than a month and Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., had only been there for two. Oh what a difference half a season can make! Because when the votes are counted, Alvarez will likely be the unanimous winner and Chavis will have only gotten a handful of third-place votes.
Alvarez was called up on June 9 and did nothing but mash. He hit 23 home runs in 56 games at Triple A, then hit 27 in 87 games with Houston. He had 51 RBIs in his first 45 games, which is just absurd. It really says all you need to know that the Astros, the team with one of the most stacked lineups in baseball, inserted a rookie right into the middle of it...and he wasn't out of place at all. The only thing they were missing was a full-time DH. Alvarez gave them one for years to come.
Frankly, I'm surprised that Guerrero wasn't among the top three finalists (which leads me to believe he finished fourth). Because he was everything people were expecting and more once he finally got the call. Think Alvarez regularly hitting in the middle of the lineup is impressive? Toronto had Vlad Jr., in the three-hole in his second game! And he played in 123 games. I'm not saying that should be a factor. But he definitely lived up to the hype. I'm not saying he had as good or as impactful a season as Alvarez. I'll take .272-15-69 from the 20-year-old you're expecting to become the face of the franchise, though.
Until Yordan Alvarez showed up, people were hyping up Tampa Bay's Brandon Lowe as the AL Rookie of the Year front-runner. Frankly, I just don't see it. He can play all over the field and is solid offensively, but what did he do to stand out above the rest? Then he didn't play at all after the All*Star Break because of injuries, which is why I'm shocked he finished in the top three. Clearly the voters see something I don't. Because I didn't even have Lowe in my top five. And why wasn't Eloy Jimenez of the White Sox among the finalists?
John Means I don't have a problem with. As bad as the Orioles were this season, the fact that he was arguably their best starter says a lot. Baltimore's team ERA was 5.59. His was 3.60. They won just 54 games. Means won 12 of them. He was the Orioles' All*Star, and not just because they needed a representative. On a bad team that used a lot of players, they were able to count on a rookie starting pitcher every fifth day who was doing more than just eating innings.
This isn't the only award where my ballot is going to look different than that of the writers. There's no debate at the top, though. Alvarez will become the first full-time DH to win AL Rookie of the Year honors since 1994. (Yes, Ohtani won last year, but, as we all know, he's a pitcher/DH.) It'll likely be unanimous. And it'll be start of a big week for the Astros, who can expect some more hardware later.
My AL Ballot: 1. Alvarez, 2. Guerrero, 3. Means
That was certainly the case this year. There's no suspense heading into the announcement. We know who won. The only question is whether or not they were both unanimous. In the AL, I think it probably is. In the NL, I'm not sure. Even though Pete Alonso had a historic rookie season and will be the winner, there was an overall strong crop of rookies in the National League, so I wouldn't be surprised if Fernando Tatis, Jr., snagged a first-place vote or two.
For most of the season, people were talking about the Alonso-Tatis Rookie of the Year "race" as if there actually was one. Call it New York bias if you want, but I never believed that. Even if Tatis had been healthy the entire year, Alonso deserves to be the runaway winner. Frankly, he deserves for it to be unanimous. Just like it was for Aaron Judge two years ago, when he was also the runner-up for AL MVP.
Judge hit 52 home runs in 2017. Alonso hit 53 in 2019. That led the National League and was also the Mets' franchise record. He was on the Mets' Opening Day roster and led Major League rookies in every major offensive category you can think of. And, while this has no bearing on the Rookie of the Year, Alonso made the All*Star Team and won the Home Run Derby. He's one of those force-of-nature rookies who takes his team and city by storm from the second he arrives. I mean, it took, what? a week? for him to be dubbed the "Polar Bear."
None of which takes anything away from Fernando Tatis, Jr., who's much more than just the son of the guy who hit two grand slams in one inning. With all this talk about service time and keeping Major League-ready rookies in Triple A, Tatis was the Padres' Opening Day shortstop at the ripe old age of 20. He'll be a foundation in San Diego for years to come. I can only imagine what his numbers would've looked like had he played the entire season! Because what he did in half a year was mighty impressive!
Then there's Mike Soroka, who would be an incredibly strong candidate (and maybe even the favorite) in any other year. He's the only one of the three who appeared in the postseason, and he's one of the big reasons why the Braves won the division. Soroka was steady in the rotation all season, made the All*Star Team, and finished third in the NL with a 2.68 ERA. And he was just as good in September as he was in April.
My NL Ballot: 1. Alonso, 2. Soroka, 3. Tatis
When I gave out my midseason awards at the All*Star Break, I had Michael Chavis of the Red Sox pegged as the AL Rookie of the Half-Year. At that point in the season, Yordan Alvarez had been in the Majors for less than a month and Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., had only been there for two. Oh what a difference half a season can make! Because when the votes are counted, Alvarez will likely be the unanimous winner and Chavis will have only gotten a handful of third-place votes.
Alvarez was called up on June 9 and did nothing but mash. He hit 23 home runs in 56 games at Triple A, then hit 27 in 87 games with Houston. He had 51 RBIs in his first 45 games, which is just absurd. It really says all you need to know that the Astros, the team with one of the most stacked lineups in baseball, inserted a rookie right into the middle of it...and he wasn't out of place at all. The only thing they were missing was a full-time DH. Alvarez gave them one for years to come.
Frankly, I'm surprised that Guerrero wasn't among the top three finalists (which leads me to believe he finished fourth). Because he was everything people were expecting and more once he finally got the call. Think Alvarez regularly hitting in the middle of the lineup is impressive? Toronto had Vlad Jr., in the three-hole in his second game! And he played in 123 games. I'm not saying that should be a factor. But he definitely lived up to the hype. I'm not saying he had as good or as impactful a season as Alvarez. I'll take .272-15-69 from the 20-year-old you're expecting to become the face of the franchise, though.
Until Yordan Alvarez showed up, people were hyping up Tampa Bay's Brandon Lowe as the AL Rookie of the Year front-runner. Frankly, I just don't see it. He can play all over the field and is solid offensively, but what did he do to stand out above the rest? Then he didn't play at all after the All*Star Break because of injuries, which is why I'm shocked he finished in the top three. Clearly the voters see something I don't. Because I didn't even have Lowe in my top five. And why wasn't Eloy Jimenez of the White Sox among the finalists?
John Means I don't have a problem with. As bad as the Orioles were this season, the fact that he was arguably their best starter says a lot. Baltimore's team ERA was 5.59. His was 3.60. They won just 54 games. Means won 12 of them. He was the Orioles' All*Star, and not just because they needed a representative. On a bad team that used a lot of players, they were able to count on a rookie starting pitcher every fifth day who was doing more than just eating innings.
This isn't the only award where my ballot is going to look different than that of the writers. There's no debate at the top, though. Alvarez will become the first full-time DH to win AL Rookie of the Year honors since 1994. (Yes, Ohtani won last year, but, as we all know, he's a pitcher/DH.) It'll likely be unanimous. And it'll be start of a big week for the Astros, who can expect some more hardware later.
My AL Ballot: 1. Alvarez, 2. Guerrero, 3. Means
Sunday, November 10, 2019
NFL 100: Week 10
I hate the six-bye week. They have one every season, and I never like it. I'm assuming the reason is so that CBS and FOX can have the same number of games on Sunday (they both have five), but that also means there are only 10 Sunday afternoon games. I also can't understand why they don't just do four byes a week for eight weeks (4-11), but probably because that's too easy and makes too much sense.
Anyway, we officially begin the second half of the season with one team still undefeated (San Francisco) and one still winless (Cincinnati). I think one of those things will change this week.
Thursday Night: Oakland (Win)
Lions (3-4-1) at Bears (3-5): Detroit-Remember when people thought the Bears were going to be good this season? We were so cute back then! Chicago has struggled to score for weeks and has dropped four straight to place themselves firmly outside of playoff contention. The Lions find themselves in a similar boat, although their situation is far less dire. That'll especially ring true when Detroit gets the road win to even its record at 4-4-1. And, remember, the Lions don't have to worry about any tiebreakers because of their tie with the Cardinals in Week 1.
Ravens (6-2) at Bengals (0-8): Baltimore-Maybe I was wrong about Baltimore. Heading into the season, I wasn't that high on the Ravens. But it turns out Lamar Jackson is the real deal, and the Ravens' defense is just as good as it usually is. And now they have a victory over the Patriots where they dominated from start to finish. That has them in position to not only win the AFC North, but maybe even to get a first-round bye. The Bengals, meanwhile, are the only remaining winless team now that the Dolphins beat the Jets. Which has them in the pole position for the No. 1 pick.
Bills (6-2) at Browns (2-6): Buffalo-There was an interesting piece on ESPN.com the other day about the tailgates outside of Bills games. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do. It's a good read. Anyway, one of the main points they made is that there's this weird feeling among Bills Mafia this year. They actually have hope. That feeling was shared by Browns fans entering the season, but things simply haven't gone the Browns' way. That front-loaded schedule did them no favors, and now they have to deal with another good, potentially playoff-bound team. They're better than their record indicates, but 2-7 is 2-7.
Chiefs (6-3) at Titans (4-5): Kansas City-People still have their questions about a Matt Moore-led Chiefs team, but Kansas City's still in first place and in a great position for a playoff bye. They still need to weather the storm until Mahomes comes back, of course, but they got a win over Minnesota last week and should be able to grab another against Tennessee. The Titans simply don't have the offensive firepower to deal with the Chiefs' defense. And the Kansas City offense has found its groove, even with a backup quarterback.
Falcons (1-7) at Saints (7-1): New Orleans-Heading into the season, many thought this would be a marquee game. Well, thanks to the Falcons' 1-7 start that will likely cost Dan Quinn his job, that hasn't been the case. There's a silver lining, though. NFC South division matchups are always backloaded for some reason (Atlanta hasn't played one yet and the Saints have only played one), so the Falcons do actually have some hope that their season isn't entirely lost. But five division games in their last eight also gives the Saints a chance to beef up their record as they fight San Francisco and Green Bay for the top spot in the NFC.
Giants (2-7) at Jets (1-7): Giants-One of the New York teams definitely won't lose this week! That's about all I can say with confidence as the Giants and Jets meet for Big Apple "supremacy" for the first time in four years. Neither team is good, but the Giants are better right now. They hung with Dallas for a half last week and almost beat Detroit the week before. The Jets, meanwhile, have been moving backwards since they shocked the Cowboys. It's a Jet home game, but Big Blue will be leaving their home field with a victory. (Sidebar: The NFL requires the visiting team to come into town the night before the game and stay in a hotel. Does that apply here? And will it apply to the Rams and Chargers when they start sharing a stadium?)
Cardinals (3-5-1) at Buccaneers (2-6): Tampa Bay-Bruce Arians' current team against his former one. I've gotta admit, I didn't think the Cardinals would be as good as they are this season. They have five losses, but they were all to good teams, and they almost won two of them, including last week against San Francisco. So you would think I'm leaning towards Arizona? Well, I'm not. Tampa Bay has really shown that it can do something offensively and nearly pulled off another upset last week in Seattle. I think the Bucs score a lot of points again this week, and this time it ends in a victory.
Dolphins (1-7) at Colts (5-3): Indianapolis-Houston took over first place when the Colts lost in Pittsburgh last week, but Indianapolis can tie them atop the division (and technically take the lead since they beat the Texans) with a win over Miami. The Dolphins did manage to get a win last week. But playing the Jets at home and playing the Colts in Indy are vastly different things. At least they know they won't be joining the 2008 Lions and 2017 Browns, though.
Panthers (5-3) at Packers (7-2): Green Bay-The Packers laid an egg last week against the Chargers. That's going to happen to most teams (not based in New England) over the course of the season. The Panthers laid an egg of their own two weeks ago in San Francisco, but rebounded nicely with that win over the Titans. Green Bay's got a big game in San Francisco itself after the bye. That showdown could be for a bye (or the No. 1 seed) in the playoffs, but not if the Packers don't win this one and get to 8-2.
Rams (5-3) at Steelers (4-4): Rams-Pittsburgh really has rebounded nicely after getting off to a miserable start. Now 4-4, the Steelers are right back in the wild card race. They face a big one this week against the Rams, who have finally started to figure things out themselves. Although, in fairness, their last two wins have come over Atlanta and Cincinnati. They need every win they can get to keep pace with the 49ers and Seahawks, though. This week will go a long way in determining which one of these teams will be playing games that matter down the stretch.
Vikings (6-3) at Cowboys (5-3): Dallas-After that little three-week hiccup (which was punctuated by a loss to the Jets), Dallas seems to have righted the ship. The Cowboys have put up 37 points in back-to-back wins over the division rival Eagles and Giants. Now they face a Vikings team that's on the second leg of a brutal road trip. Although, Minnesota did give Kansas City quite a game last week. All week they've been showing Kirk Cousins' record in primetime games because of how not good it is. No reason to think that won't continue.
Seahawks (7-2) at 49ers (8-0): Seattle-It's just like the old days! The Monday night game is the biggest game of the week! And, after the Patriots' loss to Baltimore last week, it features the NFL's only remaining undefeated team in the 49ers, who'll be taking on their division rivals. The Seahawks are really the team people should be talking about in the NFC West, though. Russell Wilson is having an MVP-type season, and they might be the third-best team in the NFC behind Green Bay and New Orleans. The 49ers face their toughest test of the season, and I see the Seahawks handing them their first loss.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 80-55-1
Anyway, we officially begin the second half of the season with one team still undefeated (San Francisco) and one still winless (Cincinnati). I think one of those things will change this week.
Thursday Night: Oakland (Win)
Lions (3-4-1) at Bears (3-5): Detroit-Remember when people thought the Bears were going to be good this season? We were so cute back then! Chicago has struggled to score for weeks and has dropped four straight to place themselves firmly outside of playoff contention. The Lions find themselves in a similar boat, although their situation is far less dire. That'll especially ring true when Detroit gets the road win to even its record at 4-4-1. And, remember, the Lions don't have to worry about any tiebreakers because of their tie with the Cardinals in Week 1.
Ravens (6-2) at Bengals (0-8): Baltimore-Maybe I was wrong about Baltimore. Heading into the season, I wasn't that high on the Ravens. But it turns out Lamar Jackson is the real deal, and the Ravens' defense is just as good as it usually is. And now they have a victory over the Patriots where they dominated from start to finish. That has them in position to not only win the AFC North, but maybe even to get a first-round bye. The Bengals, meanwhile, are the only remaining winless team now that the Dolphins beat the Jets. Which has them in the pole position for the No. 1 pick.
Bills (6-2) at Browns (2-6): Buffalo-There was an interesting piece on ESPN.com the other day about the tailgates outside of Bills games. If you haven't read it, I suggest you do. It's a good read. Anyway, one of the main points they made is that there's this weird feeling among Bills Mafia this year. They actually have hope. That feeling was shared by Browns fans entering the season, but things simply haven't gone the Browns' way. That front-loaded schedule did them no favors, and now they have to deal with another good, potentially playoff-bound team. They're better than their record indicates, but 2-7 is 2-7.
Chiefs (6-3) at Titans (4-5): Kansas City-People still have their questions about a Matt Moore-led Chiefs team, but Kansas City's still in first place and in a great position for a playoff bye. They still need to weather the storm until Mahomes comes back, of course, but they got a win over Minnesota last week and should be able to grab another against Tennessee. The Titans simply don't have the offensive firepower to deal with the Chiefs' defense. And the Kansas City offense has found its groove, even with a backup quarterback.
Falcons (1-7) at Saints (7-1): New Orleans-Heading into the season, many thought this would be a marquee game. Well, thanks to the Falcons' 1-7 start that will likely cost Dan Quinn his job, that hasn't been the case. There's a silver lining, though. NFC South division matchups are always backloaded for some reason (Atlanta hasn't played one yet and the Saints have only played one), so the Falcons do actually have some hope that their season isn't entirely lost. But five division games in their last eight also gives the Saints a chance to beef up their record as they fight San Francisco and Green Bay for the top spot in the NFC.
Giants (2-7) at Jets (1-7): Giants-One of the New York teams definitely won't lose this week! That's about all I can say with confidence as the Giants and Jets meet for Big Apple "supremacy" for the first time in four years. Neither team is good, but the Giants are better right now. They hung with Dallas for a half last week and almost beat Detroit the week before. The Jets, meanwhile, have been moving backwards since they shocked the Cowboys. It's a Jet home game, but Big Blue will be leaving their home field with a victory. (Sidebar: The NFL requires the visiting team to come into town the night before the game and stay in a hotel. Does that apply here? And will it apply to the Rams and Chargers when they start sharing a stadium?)
Cardinals (3-5-1) at Buccaneers (2-6): Tampa Bay-Bruce Arians' current team against his former one. I've gotta admit, I didn't think the Cardinals would be as good as they are this season. They have five losses, but they were all to good teams, and they almost won two of them, including last week against San Francisco. So you would think I'm leaning towards Arizona? Well, I'm not. Tampa Bay has really shown that it can do something offensively and nearly pulled off another upset last week in Seattle. I think the Bucs score a lot of points again this week, and this time it ends in a victory.
Dolphins (1-7) at Colts (5-3): Indianapolis-Houston took over first place when the Colts lost in Pittsburgh last week, but Indianapolis can tie them atop the division (and technically take the lead since they beat the Texans) with a win over Miami. The Dolphins did manage to get a win last week. But playing the Jets at home and playing the Colts in Indy are vastly different things. At least they know they won't be joining the 2008 Lions and 2017 Browns, though.
Panthers (5-3) at Packers (7-2): Green Bay-The Packers laid an egg last week against the Chargers. That's going to happen to most teams (not based in New England) over the course of the season. The Panthers laid an egg of their own two weeks ago in San Francisco, but rebounded nicely with that win over the Titans. Green Bay's got a big game in San Francisco itself after the bye. That showdown could be for a bye (or the No. 1 seed) in the playoffs, but not if the Packers don't win this one and get to 8-2.
Rams (5-3) at Steelers (4-4): Rams-Pittsburgh really has rebounded nicely after getting off to a miserable start. Now 4-4, the Steelers are right back in the wild card race. They face a big one this week against the Rams, who have finally started to figure things out themselves. Although, in fairness, their last two wins have come over Atlanta and Cincinnati. They need every win they can get to keep pace with the 49ers and Seahawks, though. This week will go a long way in determining which one of these teams will be playing games that matter down the stretch.
Vikings (6-3) at Cowboys (5-3): Dallas-After that little three-week hiccup (which was punctuated by a loss to the Jets), Dallas seems to have righted the ship. The Cowboys have put up 37 points in back-to-back wins over the division rival Eagles and Giants. Now they face a Vikings team that's on the second leg of a brutal road trip. Although, Minnesota did give Kansas City quite a game last week. All week they've been showing Kirk Cousins' record in primetime games because of how not good it is. No reason to think that won't continue.
Seahawks (7-2) at 49ers (8-0): Seattle-It's just like the old days! The Monday night game is the biggest game of the week! And, after the Patriots' loss to Baltimore last week, it features the NFL's only remaining undefeated team in the 49ers, who'll be taking on their division rivals. The Seahawks are really the team people should be talking about in the NFC West, though. Russell Wilson is having an MVP-type season, and they might be the third-best team in the NFC behind Green Bay and New Orleans. The 49ers face their toughest test of the season, and I see the Seahawks handing them their first loss.
This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-6
Overall: 80-55-1
Friday, November 8, 2019
Changing the NCAA Forever
When California passed its new state law making it illegal for colleges to prohibit student-athletes from making money off their likeness, many people wondered what that would mean for college sports. It won't go into effect until 2023, but it left many questions.
For starters, the law is most likely unconstitutional. A single state doesn't hold jurisdiction over a federal entity (just like how Congress doesn't have the authority to subject the entire world to U.S. law with its idiotic Rodchenkov Act!). So, what would it mean if NCAA rules and the California law ran contradictory to each other? And not to mention the ridiculous recruiting advantage it would give to all California schools, but UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal especially.
LeBron James (who, ironically, never went to college) was among the bill's many advocates, saying it was about time that college athletes should be able to reap some of the benefits that their schools earn off them. Others thought it was a threat to the very model on which college sports are based. There's a very fine line between college and professional sports, and that line is definitely becoming blurred.
Gov. Rick Newsom, who signed the California bill into law, predicted that many other states would follow. That proved to be exactly the case. A number of other state bills were already in the works, then, after California's officially passed, more were fast-tracked. And it left the NCAA scrambling to come up with a response.
These laws stop short at allowing college athletes to be paid directly, but, frankly, what's the difference? Once agents become involved, you're opening the door to a lot of questionable tactics and a lot of money changing hands for performance-based reasons, whether it's technically "legal" or not. Right or wrong, that has always been the basic tenet of the NCAA and what separates college sports from open professionalism. Worse, it's going to make the difference between the "haves" and the "have-nots" that much bigger.
And let's not forget about the so many conflicts of interest this presents. Rick Pitino got fired at Louisville in part because of Adidas' influence with the program. Those relationships are only going to get worse. If an athlete is sponsored by Nike, you don't think Nike would prefer he go to Oregon or Texas (both Nike schools) instead of Kansas (Adidas) or UCLA (Under Armour)?
What really bothers me about the "Fair Pay to Play Act," though, is that, once again, it's only looking out for football and men's basketball players at big schools...those who are likely to make millions of dollars in the NFL and NBA! Just like every other piece of legislation regarding college sports that has been passed in the last decade, this law is designed to help them. Not the women's golfer whose scholarship is paid for by the money brought in from football/basketball ticket revenue. Not the Division III student-athlete who doesn't even have an athletic scholarship.
Not to mention the fact that 95 percent of student-athletes don't stand to benefit from this at all! It's great for the local business in Tuscaloosa, Alabama to use Crimson Tide athletes in their promotional materials (and that the athletes will be compensated for it). But which Crimson Tide athletes do you think they're going to seek out? I'm just going to play a hunch that it won't be anyone from the tennis team. So, once again, football and men's basketball players stand to benefit while everyone else will be in the exact same situation they're currently in.
I'm also curious to see what this does to the smaller schools. Supporters of these laws love to cite the NCAA's $1 billion in revenue among their reasons why change is needed. What that number doesn't show, though, is that most collegiate athletic departments lose money. When the "full cost of attendance" legislation was put into place a few years ago, it was the smaller schools that suffered. Because they didn't have the money to cover that additional expense.
The same thing appears likely again here. Because, while this sounds great for the athletes, none of that money will actually go to help the program directly. So that gap will still exist, and likely become greater. Which further puts those programs at a disadvantage. In recruiting and everything else. It'll also widen the gap between the richly-compensated men's basketball and football players compared to those athletes on their own campus whose only compensation is their free education (which used to be enough). You're also going to have situations where the athletes are making more than assistant coaches and other staff members at their own school (or even within their own program). How is that OK? (I can only imagine the headaches this will cause compliance officers!)
Did Newsom have a point? Yes. He's right in that there are certain areas where the NCAA's current model no longer works. And the organization knows that, too. But I don't think these laws are the answer. Because you're going down a slippery slope that seems like it'll almost certainly lead to corruption. And massive conflicts of interest. And a bunch of other unforeseen problems.
Nevertheless, Newsom forced the NCAA to act. Which they had to. Because you can't have different rules for schools in one state than you do in another. Beyond that, though, if they hadn't reacted now, all it would've done is lead to more attacks on the NCAA and its model. That model worked for more than a century. But this is a much different time, and those voices were only going to get more and more vocal until they were heard.
So, the NCAA did something about it. At the NCAA Board of Governors meeting on Oct. 29, in a move that completely shocked me, they unanimously voted to allow college athletes to be compensated. They left specific rules for each division up to the schools in that division. They also made it clear that there "should be a clear distinction between college and professional opportunities" and stressed that student-athletes shouldn't be treated as employees of their school (or differently than non-athletes).
This effectively renders the individual state laws moot. It also fundamentally changes the NCAA. There's still a long way to go before this goes into effect, but it's going to. And the NCAA will never be the same. Five years from now, college sports will look completely different than they do now. How different? That remains to be seen.
For starters, the law is most likely unconstitutional. A single state doesn't hold jurisdiction over a federal entity (just like how Congress doesn't have the authority to subject the entire world to U.S. law with its idiotic Rodchenkov Act!). So, what would it mean if NCAA rules and the California law ran contradictory to each other? And not to mention the ridiculous recruiting advantage it would give to all California schools, but UCLA, USC, Stanford and Cal especially.
LeBron James (who, ironically, never went to college) was among the bill's many advocates, saying it was about time that college athletes should be able to reap some of the benefits that their schools earn off them. Others thought it was a threat to the very model on which college sports are based. There's a very fine line between college and professional sports, and that line is definitely becoming blurred.
Gov. Rick Newsom, who signed the California bill into law, predicted that many other states would follow. That proved to be exactly the case. A number of other state bills were already in the works, then, after California's officially passed, more were fast-tracked. And it left the NCAA scrambling to come up with a response.
These laws stop short at allowing college athletes to be paid directly, but, frankly, what's the difference? Once agents become involved, you're opening the door to a lot of questionable tactics and a lot of money changing hands for performance-based reasons, whether it's technically "legal" or not. Right or wrong, that has always been the basic tenet of the NCAA and what separates college sports from open professionalism. Worse, it's going to make the difference between the "haves" and the "have-nots" that much bigger.
And let's not forget about the so many conflicts of interest this presents. Rick Pitino got fired at Louisville in part because of Adidas' influence with the program. Those relationships are only going to get worse. If an athlete is sponsored by Nike, you don't think Nike would prefer he go to Oregon or Texas (both Nike schools) instead of Kansas (Adidas) or UCLA (Under Armour)?
What really bothers me about the "Fair Pay to Play Act," though, is that, once again, it's only looking out for football and men's basketball players at big schools...those who are likely to make millions of dollars in the NFL and NBA! Just like every other piece of legislation regarding college sports that has been passed in the last decade, this law is designed to help them. Not the women's golfer whose scholarship is paid for by the money brought in from football/basketball ticket revenue. Not the Division III student-athlete who doesn't even have an athletic scholarship.
Not to mention the fact that 95 percent of student-athletes don't stand to benefit from this at all! It's great for the local business in Tuscaloosa, Alabama to use Crimson Tide athletes in their promotional materials (and that the athletes will be compensated for it). But which Crimson Tide athletes do you think they're going to seek out? I'm just going to play a hunch that it won't be anyone from the tennis team. So, once again, football and men's basketball players stand to benefit while everyone else will be in the exact same situation they're currently in.
I'm also curious to see what this does to the smaller schools. Supporters of these laws love to cite the NCAA's $1 billion in revenue among their reasons why change is needed. What that number doesn't show, though, is that most collegiate athletic departments lose money. When the "full cost of attendance" legislation was put into place a few years ago, it was the smaller schools that suffered. Because they didn't have the money to cover that additional expense.
The same thing appears likely again here. Because, while this sounds great for the athletes, none of that money will actually go to help the program directly. So that gap will still exist, and likely become greater. Which further puts those programs at a disadvantage. In recruiting and everything else. It'll also widen the gap between the richly-compensated men's basketball and football players compared to those athletes on their own campus whose only compensation is their free education (which used to be enough). You're also going to have situations where the athletes are making more than assistant coaches and other staff members at their own school (or even within their own program). How is that OK? (I can only imagine the headaches this will cause compliance officers!)
Did Newsom have a point? Yes. He's right in that there are certain areas where the NCAA's current model no longer works. And the organization knows that, too. But I don't think these laws are the answer. Because you're going down a slippery slope that seems like it'll almost certainly lead to corruption. And massive conflicts of interest. And a bunch of other unforeseen problems.
Nevertheless, Newsom forced the NCAA to act. Which they had to. Because you can't have different rules for schools in one state than you do in another. Beyond that, though, if they hadn't reacted now, all it would've done is lead to more attacks on the NCAA and its model. That model worked for more than a century. But this is a much different time, and those voices were only going to get more and more vocal until they were heard.
So, the NCAA did something about it. At the NCAA Board of Governors meeting on Oct. 29, in a move that completely shocked me, they unanimously voted to allow college athletes to be compensated. They left specific rules for each division up to the schools in that division. They also made it clear that there "should be a clear distinction between college and professional opportunities" and stressed that student-athletes shouldn't be treated as employees of their school (or differently than non-athletes).
This effectively renders the individual state laws moot. It also fundamentally changes the NCAA. There's still a long way to go before this goes into effect, but it's going to. And the NCAA will never be the same. Five years from now, college sports will look completely different than they do now. How different? That remains to be seen.
Monday, November 4, 2019
2019-20 MLB Hot Stove Season
The past two Hot Stove seasons have been quite a dud. Two years ago, it took J.D. Martinez three months to sign with the Red Sox, even though everybody knew that was going to happen before Thanksgiving. Then last year was just an embarrassment. Bryce Harper and Manny Machado got their $300 million contracts, but they had to wait until February to get them. They at least signed before the season, which is more than I can say for Dallas Keuchel and Craig Kimbrel.
Will we have a third straight offseason where the Hot Stove is Lukewarm at best? And what does it mean for this year's top free agents (of which there are many)? With two front-line starting pitchers setting the market for each other, I think we'll probably be waiting at least until 2020 for the big names to sign. I don't think it'll take nearly as long as last year, though. Simply because there are too many top-tier free agents out there, and teams may not want to wait if there's a guy they want.
We saw the three biggest names who'll be available during the World Series. At least one of them is going to change teams. Gerrit Cole basically said as much when he told a reporter that he was "no longer an Astros employee" after Game 7. I don't think the Nationals will be able to sign both of their guys, though. So we'll see whether they prioritize World Series MVP Stephen Strasburg or NL MVP finalist Anthony Rendon.
Gerrit Cole (Predicted Team: Angels): He's from Southern California. He went to UCLA. The Angels have a new manager (Joe Maddon), the best player in the game (Mike Trout), and a lot of money. They also haven't had a true No. 1 starter since Jered Weaver left. As a result, they're going to throw a lot of that money at Cole. It won't be the "stupid" money the Phillies threw at Harper last offseason, but they'll still give him enough to set the record for richest pitching contract ever. I'll be shocked if he signs anywhere else.
Stephen Strasburg (Nationals): Strasburg had to make a decision on whether or not to opt out before the parade! He decided to opt out, which doesn't necessarily mean he's leaving Washington. It could be a similar ploy to the move Aroldis Chapman made where he's trying to just add some years and money to his deal. The Padres spent big on Eric Hosmer and Manny Machado in the last two offseasons, so don't count out them making a push to bring Strasburg, a San Diego native, home. But, when Harper left, the Nationals doubled down on starting pitching and it won them a World Series. They'll do everything they can to keep Max & Stras together, and I think it'll work.
Anthony Rendon (Braves): Whether or not the Nationals have enough to give both Strasburg and Rendon the money they're going to command is the question. I have a feeling they're going to have to choose. If Strasburg does indeed go to San Diego and Rendon hasn't signed yet, that could change their thinking. But I think Rendon comes off the board first. Because there's a division rival that needs a third baseman who'd love to plug his bat into the middle of their lineup for the next six (or more) years.
Yasmani Grandal (Astros): Both of Houston's catchers are free agents. Which is convenient. Because so is Yasmani Grandal. He took risk of signing a one-year deal with the Brewers and testing out the free agent market again. I think it'll pay off after his excellent year in Milwaukee. And he's the type of player Houston loves. A switch-hitting catcher with power. Grandal would fit in beautifully with the Astros.
Didi Gregorius (Yankees): This is an interesting one. Just because the Yankees didn't make a qualifying offer doesn't mean Didi's tenure in pinstripes is over. He's expressed a desire to come back, and I'd imagine he will if the Yankees want him back. So, the ball's really in their court. I'm still leaning towards a reunion, especially after all the injuries they endured last season (not to mention Didi's own injury). If not, he waits before signing a one- or two-year deal. Maybe even across town.
Edwin Encarnacion (Rangers): Encarnacion, on the other hand, definitely won't be back with the Yankees next season. They declined his option and really don't need another DH. The Rangers, though. They're opening a new ballpark and would love a masher like Encarnacion to pair with Joey Gallo in the middle of the lineup. The fact that he can also play a capable first base adds to his value, but he's still primarily a DH, which limits his market to a handful of AL teams. This could end up like the J.D. Martinez bidding war between the Red Sox and themselves two years ago.
Mike Moustakas (Nationals): If Rendon leaves, Moustakas would be the perfect replacement in Washington. And he'll cost significantly less, too. After twice getting screwed over by being a free agent in the two worst possible offseasons, Moustakas might finally be in a position to cash in on the big contract he deserves. I think the Brewers will make every effort to keep him. I just don't think they'll have the resources to do it. Because every team that's in on Rendon and loses out will have pretty good Plan B's in Moustakas and Josh Donaldson.
Josh Donaldson (Phillies): Do you even remember who the Phillies' third baseman was last season? Exactly. They've shown that they aren't scared to spend money. After Year 1 of Bryce Harper resulted in a fourth-place finish, they won't be shy in going after more free agents. And Donaldson fits the bill in multiple respects. He can bat second in front of Harper and play third, a position where they don't have an incumbent.
Madison Bumgarner (Astros): Had he become a free agent five years ago, Bumgarner would've commanded the type of money Cole and Strasburg are going to get. Instead, he'll probably get No. 2 or No. 3 starter money, which he'll probably take to go to a contender and potentially add a fourth World Series ring to his resume. Frankly, it's weird to picture him wearing anything other than a Giants jersey. But, considering Houston's proficiency with resurrecting pitchers' careers, and the fact that Cole is likely to leave, I can definitely see the Astros signing Bumgarner and slotting him behind Verlander and Greinke, keeping that rotation ridiculous.
Dallas Keuchel (Yankees): Last year, the Yankees opted not to go after Keuchel, who had to wait until June before signing with Atlanta. This time, there's no compensation attached to him, so I think Keuchel gets a full season with somebody. And I think the Yankees will rethink their position about him, too. They're more likely to go after the two top-of-the-rotation arms. But even if they miss out on Cole and Strasburg, Keuchel still represents an upgrade over J.A. Happ. And a rotation of Severino, Tanaka, Paxton, Keuchel and German doesn't really look that terrible. He's a third or fourth option and will likely get offered better money (or more years) elsewhere, but, for some reason, I can see Keuchel shaving the beard and going after another ring in the Bronx.
There are a bunch of other mid-level free agents available, too, from Zack Wheeler (Blue Jays) to Yasiel Puig (Cubs) to Hyun-Jin Ryu (Dodgers) to Nicholas Castellanos (Diamondbacks). So, while it'll probably be a slow market for the big names, we'll still see some movement as baseball's Hot Stove season gets going.
Will we have a third straight offseason where the Hot Stove is Lukewarm at best? And what does it mean for this year's top free agents (of which there are many)? With two front-line starting pitchers setting the market for each other, I think we'll probably be waiting at least until 2020 for the big names to sign. I don't think it'll take nearly as long as last year, though. Simply because there are too many top-tier free agents out there, and teams may not want to wait if there's a guy they want.
We saw the three biggest names who'll be available during the World Series. At least one of them is going to change teams. Gerrit Cole basically said as much when he told a reporter that he was "no longer an Astros employee" after Game 7. I don't think the Nationals will be able to sign both of their guys, though. So we'll see whether they prioritize World Series MVP Stephen Strasburg or NL MVP finalist Anthony Rendon.
Gerrit Cole (Predicted Team: Angels): He's from Southern California. He went to UCLA. The Angels have a new manager (Joe Maddon), the best player in the game (Mike Trout), and a lot of money. They also haven't had a true No. 1 starter since Jered Weaver left. As a result, they're going to throw a lot of that money at Cole. It won't be the "stupid" money the Phillies threw at Harper last offseason, but they'll still give him enough to set the record for richest pitching contract ever. I'll be shocked if he signs anywhere else.
Stephen Strasburg (Nationals): Strasburg had to make a decision on whether or not to opt out before the parade! He decided to opt out, which doesn't necessarily mean he's leaving Washington. It could be a similar ploy to the move Aroldis Chapman made where he's trying to just add some years and money to his deal. The Padres spent big on Eric Hosmer and Manny Machado in the last two offseasons, so don't count out them making a push to bring Strasburg, a San Diego native, home. But, when Harper left, the Nationals doubled down on starting pitching and it won them a World Series. They'll do everything they can to keep Max & Stras together, and I think it'll work.
Anthony Rendon (Braves): Whether or not the Nationals have enough to give both Strasburg and Rendon the money they're going to command is the question. I have a feeling they're going to have to choose. If Strasburg does indeed go to San Diego and Rendon hasn't signed yet, that could change their thinking. But I think Rendon comes off the board first. Because there's a division rival that needs a third baseman who'd love to plug his bat into the middle of their lineup for the next six (or more) years.
Yasmani Grandal (Astros): Both of Houston's catchers are free agents. Which is convenient. Because so is Yasmani Grandal. He took risk of signing a one-year deal with the Brewers and testing out the free agent market again. I think it'll pay off after his excellent year in Milwaukee. And he's the type of player Houston loves. A switch-hitting catcher with power. Grandal would fit in beautifully with the Astros.
Didi Gregorius (Yankees): This is an interesting one. Just because the Yankees didn't make a qualifying offer doesn't mean Didi's tenure in pinstripes is over. He's expressed a desire to come back, and I'd imagine he will if the Yankees want him back. So, the ball's really in their court. I'm still leaning towards a reunion, especially after all the injuries they endured last season (not to mention Didi's own injury). If not, he waits before signing a one- or two-year deal. Maybe even across town.
Edwin Encarnacion (Rangers): Encarnacion, on the other hand, definitely won't be back with the Yankees next season. They declined his option and really don't need another DH. The Rangers, though. They're opening a new ballpark and would love a masher like Encarnacion to pair with Joey Gallo in the middle of the lineup. The fact that he can also play a capable first base adds to his value, but he's still primarily a DH, which limits his market to a handful of AL teams. This could end up like the J.D. Martinez bidding war between the Red Sox and themselves two years ago.
Mike Moustakas (Nationals): If Rendon leaves, Moustakas would be the perfect replacement in Washington. And he'll cost significantly less, too. After twice getting screwed over by being a free agent in the two worst possible offseasons, Moustakas might finally be in a position to cash in on the big contract he deserves. I think the Brewers will make every effort to keep him. I just don't think they'll have the resources to do it. Because every team that's in on Rendon and loses out will have pretty good Plan B's in Moustakas and Josh Donaldson.
Josh Donaldson (Phillies): Do you even remember who the Phillies' third baseman was last season? Exactly. They've shown that they aren't scared to spend money. After Year 1 of Bryce Harper resulted in a fourth-place finish, they won't be shy in going after more free agents. And Donaldson fits the bill in multiple respects. He can bat second in front of Harper and play third, a position where they don't have an incumbent.
Madison Bumgarner (Astros): Had he become a free agent five years ago, Bumgarner would've commanded the type of money Cole and Strasburg are going to get. Instead, he'll probably get No. 2 or No. 3 starter money, which he'll probably take to go to a contender and potentially add a fourth World Series ring to his resume. Frankly, it's weird to picture him wearing anything other than a Giants jersey. But, considering Houston's proficiency with resurrecting pitchers' careers, and the fact that Cole is likely to leave, I can definitely see the Astros signing Bumgarner and slotting him behind Verlander and Greinke, keeping that rotation ridiculous.
Dallas Keuchel (Yankees): Last year, the Yankees opted not to go after Keuchel, who had to wait until June before signing with Atlanta. This time, there's no compensation attached to him, so I think Keuchel gets a full season with somebody. And I think the Yankees will rethink their position about him, too. They're more likely to go after the two top-of-the-rotation arms. But even if they miss out on Cole and Strasburg, Keuchel still represents an upgrade over J.A. Happ. And a rotation of Severino, Tanaka, Paxton, Keuchel and German doesn't really look that terrible. He's a third or fourth option and will likely get offered better money (or more years) elsewhere, but, for some reason, I can see Keuchel shaving the beard and going after another ring in the Bronx.
There are a bunch of other mid-level free agents available, too, from Zack Wheeler (Blue Jays) to Yasiel Puig (Cubs) to Hyun-Jin Ryu (Dodgers) to Nicholas Castellanos (Diamondbacks). So, while it'll probably be a slow market for the big names, we'll still see some movement as baseball's Hot Stove season gets going.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)