We Love LA

While 2020 has been an absolute dumpster fire of a year, sports fans in LA probably didn't mind the month of October.  A few weeks after the Lakers wrapped up their stay in the NBA bubble with a championship, the Dodgers finally snapped their 32-year World Series drought.  The delayed NBA Finals obviously meant a champion was crowned later than usual, although it did make it possible for LA to become the first city to have two of its teams win championships in the same month.

This isn't the first time that the Lakers and Dodgers have been champions at the same time, though.  They also both won titles in 1988.  In fact, this is the 12th time in the Super Bowl Era that one city/metropolitan area has two Major League champions simultaneously.  And, if the Rams or Chargers can win the Super Bowl, LA will become the first three-champion city.

But where does LA's unusual 2020 double rank in the pantheon of two-champion seasons?  I'd argue that it's pretty high, not just because they both entered the playoffs as the No. 1 overall seed, but because of the circumstances surrounding the season.  All that talk about asterisks is nonsense!  After everything they had to go through, there's nothing illegitimate about either championship!

Was it the best combined season by two Major League sports champions in the same city, though?  No, I don't think it was.  So where does it rank?  Let's find out.  (Since the Super Bowl is either the first or last championship of the season depending on how you look at it, I included any double title that includes a Super Bowl.)

12. Los Angeles 1988 (Lakers/Dodgers): LA's previous Lakers/Dodgers double wasn't nearly as expected as this one.  The Showtime Lakers weren't a surprise.  They were the defending champions and went 62-20.  Magic, Kareem and Co. beat the Pistons in seven for the title.  The Dodgers, meanwhile, were underdogs against the Mets in the NLCS and against the A's in the World Series.  Fortunately, they had Orel Hershiser.  (And, fortunately for the current Dodgers, they no longer need to hear about 1988.)

11. New York 2000 (Devils/Yankees): It was the Yankees' third straight World Series title and fourth in five years, but in many ways, it was the least impressive of the run.  The 1998 team was historic, and they had a historic postseason in 1999.  Yet in 2000 they faced more pressure than ever playing against the Mets in the Subway Series.  As for the Devils, they were primed to make a run after several years of playoff disappointments, and they came through with a six-game Stanley Cup Final victory over the defending champion Dallas Stars.  (Fun fact: they'd both lose their respective championship series in seven games in 2001.)

10. Los Angeles 2002 (Lakers/Angels): Remember that delightful all-wild card 2002 World Series between the Giants and Angels?  The Angels won 99 games, but finished second in the AL West behind the Moneyball A's.  No matter.  They beat the Yankees and Twins in the playoffs before their seven-game World Series triumph.  The 2001-02 season was peak Shaq & Kobe days for the Lakers.  They started the season 16-1 and swept the Nets to complete the three-peat.

9. Pittsburgh 2009 (Steelers/Penguins): Pittsburgh has the only entry on this list that doesn't include a World Series winner.  Instead it's the Steelers team that won Super Bowl XLIII a few months before the Crosby/Malkin Penguins hoisted the Cup for the first time.  Their regular season wasn't nearly as good as their 2007-08 campaign that ended with a seven-game loss to the Red Wings.  The 2009 Stanley Cup Final was a rematch with Detroit, with the Penguins winning this time.  The 2008 Steelers beat the Cardinals in a classic to become the first six-time Super Bowl champions.

8. Baltimore 1970 (Orioles/Colts): The first time a city's teams won the World Series and Super Bowl back-to-back.  The Colts went 11-2-1 after joining the AFC in the first post-merger season, then went on to beat the Cowboys in Super Bowl V.  Except they lose points because that was one of the worst Super Bowls ever.  The 1970 Orioles, meanwhile, ran away with the AL East, winning 108 games and the second of three straight pennants.  Brooks Robinson then stole the show in a five-game World Series against the Reds.

7. San Francisco 1989 (Athletics/49ers): Either the Super Bowl XXIII or XXIV champion 49ers apply here.  In 1988, the 49ers went just 10-6 during the regular season, but dominated the Vikings and Bears in the playoffs before that classic Super Bowl against Cincinnati.  The 1989 team, meanwhile, was one of the greatest in NFL history.  They went 14-2 and all three playoff games were blowouts, including a 55-10 demolition of the Broncos in the Super Bowl.  The 1989 World Series will always be remembered for the earthquake, of course.  But it was also the only championship during that dominant three-season run by the A's, who never trailed against the Giants in the World Series.

6. Pittsburgh 1979 (Pirates/Steelers): Our second entry from the Steel City features the end of the Steel Curtain dynasty and the "We Are Fam-i-lee Pirates."  Like the 49ers, you can apply either Steelers season here.  In 1978, they went 14-2 and beat the Cowboys in the Super Bowl.  The following year, they went 12-4 and won their fourth title against the Rams.  The 1979 Pirates are one of the most fun teams in baseball history.  They had nine! different uniform combos, all of which were bright, and were led by the effervescent Hall of Famer Willie "Pops" Stargell.  In a very brightly-colored World Series, the 98-win Pirates beat the 102-win Orioles in seven high-quality games.

5. New York 1969 (Jets/Mets): Both the Jets and Mets became darlings after these historic championships, both of which were upsets.  Super Bowl III was the most important game in the history of the AFL.  Joe Namath "guaranteed" victory against the mighty 18-1 Baltimore Colts, then engineered a stunning 16-7 upset that legitimized an entire league.  The 1969 Mets also pulled an upset.  They had never finished higher than ninth in a 10-team league in their first seven seasons of existence.  But in 1969, the Mets won 100 games and the first-ever NL East title.  They went into the World Series as underdogs against the 109-win Orioles...and beat them in five games.

4. Boston 2004 (Red Sox/Patriots): We all know how historic the 2004 Red Sox championship was.  They won their first championship in 86 years in epic fashion, coming back from 3-0 down in the ALCS (in hindsight, the Red Sox were a better team than the Yankees that season) before sweeping the Cardinals in the World Series.  The fact that it came right at the height of the Bradicheck Era made Boston sports fans suddenly feeling giddy about themselves.  Like the other two back-to-back Super Bowl winners on this list, take your pick of Patriots teams here.  Do you want the 2003 squad that won its final 15 games, including their last-second Super Bowl victory over Carolina?  Or would you prefer the 2004 team that extended that winning streak to 21 games overall and beat Philadelphia to become the last back-to-back Super Bowl champion?  (Incredibly, these are the Patriots' only consecutive titles!)

3. Los Angeles 2020 (Lakers/Dodgers): I'm putting the Lakers and Dodgers at No. 3.  We all know how weird 2020 has been, but it's very likely that they would've won titles had this season been normal.  The Lakers were the best team in the NBA pre-shutdown, then proved to be the best team in the bubble, as well, as LeBron won his fourth title and first with the Lakers.  The Dodgers had gotten tired of losing in the playoffs, so it was World Series or bust for them.  The pressure was turned up even more after they went 43-17 in the 60-game regular season.  When they went down 3-1 against the Braves in the NLCS, it looked like they might have yet another playoff disappointment.  But they flipped the script and finally ended that well-publicized 32-year championship drought.

2. Boston 2018 (Red Sox/Patriots): Not only did the Red Sox and Patriots win the World Series and Super Bowl four months apart, they both did it by beating an LA team for the title.  Let's start with the Red Sox, who had one of those historic seasons.  They lost on Opening Day, then won 17 of their next 18 before getting no-hit in Oakland.  They ended up with 108 wins in the regular season before breezing past the Yankees, Astros and Dodgers for a World Series title that seemed inevitable in April.  As for the Patriots, they won their third straight AFC title (and fourth in five years) and claimed the sixth Lombardi Trophy of the Bradicheck Era by holding the high-scoring Rams offense to just a field goal in one of the most boring Super Bowls ever.

1. New York 1986 (Mets/Giants): Accuse me of hometown bias all you want, but I think the 1986 Mets/Giants combo is the best championship year for any city.  Why?  Because they're two all-time great teams.  The '86 Mets, of course, are legendary.  A 108-win regular season followed by a playoff run that included a thrilling NLCS against Houston and a classic World Series comeback against Boston.  The '86 Giants didn't make it nearly as interesting.  They just bludgeoned everybody to death with their punishing defense, led by Lawrence Taylor in the best season of his career.  They ended the season on a 12-game winning streak (including the playoffs).  They won their first two playoff games by a combined score of 66-3, then overwhelmed Denver in the Super Bowl.

Analytics=Overmanaging

Sabermetrics and analytics have taken over baseball.  We've known this for a few years, and their hold on the game has only grown stronger as more and more teams have embraced the philosophy.  Never was it more apparent than in the World Series, when strict adherence to analytics arguably cost each team a game.

Among the biggest changes in the game that were the result of the analytics revolution are the "opener" and over-sized bullpens.  Those are both trademarks of the Tampa Bay Rays that have been copied by virtually every other team in the Majors.  And, as the use of openers and over-sized bullpens have become more prevalent, so have predetermined pitching plans.  Teams annoying stick to their planned script no matter how well the pitcher currently in the game is doing--a strategy that proved costly for Tampa Bay in Game 6.

Game 6 is perhaps the most important game in any best-of-seven series.  It's always an elimination game, so the pressure's on to either avoid or cause a Game 7.  So, even though they trailed the series 3-2, the Rays had to feel good entering Game 6 with their best pitcher, Blake Snell, on the mound.  And, since it was going to be his final start of the season, you'd figure that you ride your horse as long as he's still dealing.  Which Snell certainly was.

He was great in Game 2, when he allowed just two hits and struck out nine in a Tampa Bay win.  In Game 6, he was even better.  Snell was untouchable for five innings, striking out nine and not walking anybody.  The Dodgers only had two base runners--on singles by Chris Taylor and Austin Barnes.  However, after the Barnes single, Rays manager Kevin Cash popped out of the dugout to take his ace out of the game.  Two batters later, the Dodgers had the lead and the second-guessing began.

For the most part, managers have been hesitant to let starting pitchers face the lineup for a third time in the sabermetrics era.  The numbers do give some credence to that argument.  Snell's ERA and batting average against were dramatically worse the third time through the lineup than the first and second times.  So, the Rays had determined ahead of time that Snell wouldn't face any hitter a third time.  And, since Barnes was the Dodgers' No. 9 hitter that meant, single or not, he was Snell's last batter.

Here's the problem with sabermetrics, though.  There are things they don't take into account, so you can't rely on them exclusively.  For years, managers weren't bound to pages of statistics spit out by computers.  They were allowed to read the game situation and trust their gut.  And, had Cash trusted his gut, there's no doubt he would've left Snell in, especially considering the Dodgers 1-3 hitters were a combined 0-for-6 with five strikeouts against him to that point.  At the very least, he'd finish the inning before going to the bullpen.

That's another point about the over-reliance on bullpens in the sabermetrics age.  Tampa Bay was eager to get to the bullpen because it's the strength of the team.  But...going to that well over and over again counts on those guys being "on" every night.  And the more exposure the opposing lineup gets to those arms, the less likely they are to be "on."

During the regular season, when the longest series you're gonna play against a team is four games, you can get away with using going back to the same relievers all the time.  In a seven-game series, though, the more a reliever pitches, the more likely it is the opposing hitters will figure him out.  That, combined with the fact that starters frequently get a quicker hook in the postseason means you're counting on the bullpen to get far too many outs night after night.  And that's a lot to ask of any bullpen, no matter how good it is.

Contrast that to how the Dodgers handled their bullpen in Game 6.  Their closer, Kenley Jansen, had his issues all season, and those struggles carried over into the playoffs to the point where Dave Roberts wouldn't commit to using him at the end of games.  Jansen pitched the ninth inning of Game 3 (in a non-save situation) and gave up a home run to Randy Arozarena.  Then with the Dodgers up one in the ninth inning of Game 4, he blew the save after giving up a single, a walk and that crazy walk-off sequence.

Nevertheless, you would've figured that the Dodgers' all-time saves leader would get the ball in the ninth inning with the chance to close out the World Series.  Except he never even got up!  Julio Urias had retired all four batters he faced in the seventh and eighth, so Roberts stuck with the hot hand in the ninth.  And he promptly retired the Rays in order to clinch LA's first championship in 32 years.

Maybe the Dodgers learned a lesson earlier in the series.  In Game 2, they did the "bullpen game" and used Tony Gonsolin as an "opener."  Generally speaking, doing a bullpen game doesn't work in the World Series.  And it didn't.  It cycled back to Gonsolin again in Game 6, but this time Roberts vowed to use him as a traditional starter.  Of course, Gonsolin ended up only going 1.2 innings, but he went in with a completely different mindset.

Roberts received his share of criticism during the World Series, both for the staff game in Game 2 and for his usage of Clayton Kershaw in Game 5.  Kershaw was awesome in Game 1, giving up one run over six innings.  Yet, going into Game 5, Roberts said that Kershaw was only going to face around 21 hitters.  For a veteran starter, let alone a Hall of Famer like Kershaw, the third time through the lineup isn't a problem.  So why are you committing to two turns through the lineup plus three hitters?  And why are you announcing it to the game?

Kershaw wasn't as good in Game 5 as he was in Game 1, but he was still effective.  Yet, sure enough, as soon as he faced his 21st hitter, here comes Roberts out of the dugout to lift his starter (for the record, Kershaw also faced 21 hitters in Game 1).  Why are you taking him out with two out and nobody on in a 4-2 game just because he hit his magical (and arbitrary) number of hitters limit (which is vastly different than a pitch count limit)?  At the very least, have him face the next hitter and try to get out of the inning without having to use a reliever.

There were plenty of examples of sabermetric/analytic-based bullpen mismanagement throughout the playoffs.  The Rays benefited from the Yankees' bullpen overuse and ill-fated attempt at using an opener during the Division Series, and the Dodgers almost blew it in the NLCS with their Game 7 opener strategy.

One of the biggest cliches about playoff baseball is that what works in the playoffs doesn't necessarily work in the regular season.  You have more off days.  Thus you can get away with using the same relievers more frequently.  And you can use them for longer outings or in different situations than you otherwise would.  (Or, as the 2018 Red Sox showed, sometimes you can use your starters out of the bullpen.)

However, the opposite is also true.  Don't overthink it.  Stick with what got you there.  If you don't normally do bullpen days or use openers during the regular season, don't do it in the playoffs!  And, even if it is the strategy that got you there, don't let it dictate everything you do.  Because sometimes watching the game can tell you far more than analytics can.

NFL 2020, Week 7

This unusual NFL season approaches its midpoint, and there's still a lot we don't know as we hit Week 7.  Some teams have separated themselves and stood out as the top contenders, while the NFC East is downright embarrassing.  To think, one of those four teams will have a home playoff game, and six wins might be enough to do it!

But that's a conversation for another day.  And more than half the season is left, so a lot can still happen.  In fact, I fully expect somebody who's not currently in the playoff picture to go on a late season run (which is a Philadelphia Eagles trademark).  Likewise, at least one of the current playoff teams will probably fall off once division games start.

Week 7 could be where we start to see some of that separation.  At the very least, the playoff picture will start to come into focus.  I know it's silly to start looking at playoff positioning before November, but there are a few games this week that could have a huge bearing on the postseason.  Especially the game in Nashville, where the AFC's last two undefeated teams meet.

Thursday Night: Philadelphia (Win)

Lions (2-3) at Falcons (1-5): Detroit-Maybe all the Falcons needed was a coaching change!  Or maybe that was just a shot in the arm.  Playing a Vikings team that hasn't exactly been good this season sure helped!  I guess we'll find out this week when they return home to face the Lions.  I'm still waiting to find out what kind of team Detroit is, too.  They're 2-3, but their losses are to the Bears, Packers and Saints, and they won in Arizona.

Browns (4-2) at Bengals (1-4-1): Cleveland-Cleveland is a team on the rise, but the Browns clearly have some room to go.  They're sitting in playoff position at 4-2, but both of their losses have been blowouts: 38-6 to Baltimore and 38-7 to Pittsburgh.  So it's obvious that they haven't reached the level where they can compete with the elite teams yet.  Fortunately, the Bengals aren't an elite team.  The Browns won the first matchup with Cincinnati, and should complete the season sweep here.

Steelers (5-0) at Titans (5-0): Tennessee-Three weeks later, the Steelers and Titans finally meet.  They enter as the AFC's final two unbeaten teams, and the winner will have the inside track to the only playoff bye.  Both offenses are clicking, too.  The Steelers routed Cleveland last week, while the Titans had an impressive comeback against Houston.  Expect a lot of points to be put on the board in this one.  The game is in Nashville, which is the sole reason I'm picking the Titans.

Panthers (3-3) at Saints (3-2): New Orleans-The Saints' expected domination of the NFC South hasn't quite come to pass so far this season.  In fact, if they lose this week, they'll drop into third place!  Don't expect that to happen, though.  The offense was just beginning to find its groove when the bye week hit last week.  That could've been a bad thing if it messed with their mojo, but I actually think the extra week of practice will be a help.  I'm expecting 30-plus points from the Saints.

Bills (4-2) at Jets (0-6): Buffalo-I don't know if the Jets are actively trying to suck so that they can draft Trevor Lawrence or if that's simply an unintentional benefit of being this bad.  I'd like to say something nice--ANYTHING nice--about them, but I really can't.  It was really telling last week when they put up a graphic that showed how many times they've been blown out since Adam Gase became their head coach.  So, yeah, it's gonna take a lot for me to pick the Jets in any game the rest of this season.

Cowboys (2-4) at Washington (1-5): Dallas-OK, so maybe I was wrong about the Cowboys being just fine under Andy Dalton.  They didn't just look bad on Monday night.  They looked like they barely knew how to play football!  Yet, the crazy thing is, they'll be back in first place with a win (and still only half a game out with a loss).  This is also Washington's last game before the election, so it'll be the one used to determine if the "Redskins Rule" holds true (although it didn't in either of the last two elections, and they aren't called the Redskins anymore, so this "rule" may officially be dead).

Packers (4-1) at Texans (1-5): Green Bay-Last week's Packers-Bucs game was a surprise in more ways than one.  It looked like they were gonna cruise after that start, but they forgot about the last 50 minutes of the game!  As a result, not only are they no longer undefeated, they find themselves behind the Bears in the NFC North.  Houston has been a much better team in the two weeks since Romeo Crennel took over, but, as we saw last week, they don't quite have enough to get over the hump against the top teams.

Buccaneers (4-2) at Raiders (3-2): Las Vegas-They flexed this one out of Sunday night at the last minute because of positive COVID tests on the Raiders, but it actually worked out better.  Now fans in Tampa can watch the Bucs and Rays back-to-back on FOX instead of having to flip between them.  Last week, we saw flashes of what the Bucs offense might be this season, as they crushed the Packers after spotting Green Bay a 10-0 lead.  The Raiders are coming off an impressive win of their own over the Chiefs.  And you know Gruden wants to beat Tampa Bay at all costs!

Chiefs (5-1) at Broncos (2-3): Kansas City-Finally, a game that will be played as it was originally scheduled!  The Chiefs have had two impromptu Monday afternoon/evening games in the past three weeks, while Denver lost its bye because of the Patriots' issues.  Once that game was finally played, the Broncos looked like the team that had actually been able to practice.  Kansas City hasn't had that problem, though.  And the Chiefs are still arguably the best team in the AFC.

49ers (3-3) at Patriots (2-3): New England-For the first time in 15 years, the New England Patriots are below .500.  The Patriots are also in third-place! in the AFC East (I don't remember the last time they trailed Miami in the standings).  They clearly aren't the same dominant team anymore, but I don't think it's cause for alarm.  Although, with the 49ers visiting Foxboro, it'll probably have their fans missing Jimmy Garoppolo pretty badly.  Especially if he outperforms Cam Newton.

Jaguars (1-5) at Chargers (1-4): Chargers-SoFi Stadium has two games in a weekend for the first time, starting with Jaguars-Chargers on Sunday.  That wasn't supposed to be the case, but this is one of four Chargers games that was moved to accommodate the rescheduling of Broncos-Patriots.  They were originally supposed to be in Miami, and Jacksonville was supposed to be off!  Which one can better adjust to the schedule change?  I think the advantage goes to the one that doesn't have to fly cross country.

Seahawks (5-0) at Cardinals (4-2): Seattle-NBC's replacement Sunday night game is a pretty good one.  The Seahawks are arguably the best team in football, while the Cardinals are that team nobody wants to play.  Arizona is a very dangerous opponent for good teams, and the Seahawks know it.  They'll be ready.  The Cardinals will keep it close, but Russell Wilson will lead a late game-winning drive that keeps Seattle undefeated.

Bears (5-1) at Rams (4-2): Chicago-Despite being 5-1, the Chicago Bears don't get much love.  A lot of critics think their record is simply the product of an easy schedule.  That may be true, but the Bears do have an elite defense.  So do the Rams, who need every win they can get to keep pace in the ultra-competitive NFC West.  This should be a good one, and the winner could depend on which Rams team shows up.  Will it be the one that beat the Eagles in Philadelphia or the one that forgot it had a game last week in San Francisco?

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 8-6
Season: 62-28-1

The NHL & NBA Seasons

Now that they've successfully completed their seasons inside their bubbles, the NHL and NBA have moved on to their next big challenge--the 2020-21 season.  Under normal circumstances, the NHL would've started a few weeks ago and the NBA would be starting up right about now.  These, of course, aren't normal circumstances, and both leagues knew that next season would have to be delayed as soon as they committed to finishing their 2019-20 campaigns.  And figuring out when to start (and finish) next season isn't proving to be easy.

NHL Commissioner Gary Bettman originally threw December 1 out there as a target date, which even he acknowledged was incredibly optimistic.  Now January 1 is looking more likely, although that isn't set in stone.  Whether that's in empty arenas in home cities or arenas with fans or bubbles remains to be seen, but early January does seem like a realistic target.

There are, of course, several logistical issues that they still must overcome.  The biggest one is the border, which remains closed.  We don't know when it's gonna reopen, and teams won't be able to go freely back and forth until it does.  That's why the Blue Jays played their "home" games in Buffalo and why all three Canadian MLS teams have had to play their "home" games in the US.

One solution to this problem that has been discussed is creating a Canadian division and having those seven teams play only each other, at least at the start.  That would probably work, although I don't think they need to create a separate "Canadian" division.  The border will eventually reopen sometime in 2021, at which point they'll be able to travel to the US and the American teams will be able to travel to Canada without having to quarantine.  So, they can simply put the all-Canadian matchups early in the season before they all move on to the rest of their schedules.

I think they've moved off this idea, but at one point, the idea of smaller bubbles involving 6-8 teams all playing each other at one site was floated around.  They could always go that route if the Canadian teams need to remain separated.  It would make sense to do them regionally, too.  You could maybe have the Bruins with the Flyers, Capitals and the three New York teams or the three California teams with Vegas, Arizona and Colorado.

Regardless, it looks like the NHL is committed to a full 82-game season, which they should be able to accomplish.  Teams have been told to book their arenas through the end of July, although I think the NHL would like to award the Stanley Cup by mid-July at the latest (their TV partner, NBC, will be a little busy in late July).

By taking the necessary and predictable step of cancelling the Winter Classic and All*Star Game, the NHL has plenty of room to play an 82-game season between New Year's Day and Mother's Day, followed by the traditional 16-team playoffs.  Teams are already expecting a number of back-to-backs next season (perhaps multiple back-to-backs in a week), and the bye weeks will almost certainly be eliminated.

The later they start, however, the less likely it is they'll be able to play 82 games and finish by mid-July (which is important, since they want to start the 2021-22 schedule on time).  But they may be willing to wait and play a shorter season if it means they can have fans in the stands.  The NHL is a gate-driven league.  Teams rely on attendance for revenue much more than teams in the other three major leagues.  So, the owners might not think it's worth it to play in empty arenas.

Meanwhile, I don't see any possible way for the NBA to play a complete 82-game season in 2021.  They also originally targeted December 1 (which seemed incredibly optimistic when they finished in mid-October), although starting on Christmas seemed more likely.  Now even Christmas seems optimistic.  Commissioner Adam Silver is now saying Martin Luther King Day, which means mid-January.

For the NBA, the biggest issue is the time crunch.  They've indicated that they want to go back to their normal timeline for the playoffs, which would put the NBA Finals starting in mid-June.  For that to happen, the regular season would need to end in mid-April.  That's just under 90 days, even less if they still want to have the All*Star Game (which would be stupid)!  This isn't baseball!  You can't play 82 games in 90 days, then potentially 28 more over two months of playoffs!

That's obviously not set in stone.  Nothing is.  But the NBA is up against the clock.  They know they can't go too deep into the summer.  For a number of reasons.

While they haven't said anything Olympics, all indications are that the NBA won't take an Olympic break.  That's their prerogative.  But they need to make a decision one way or the other sooner rather than later.  A number of countries are relying on having NBA players and/or coaches available to them for Olympic qualifying and the Olympics themselves.  If that won't be the case, they need to be able to plan accordingly.

Beyond that, though, I think the powers that be at the NBA know it would be idiotic to go against the Olympics.  Not only because of player availability, but because they know that NBA games--even playoff games--will get crushed in the ratings by the Olympics.  It would also generate a lot of resentment from FIBA and the IOC.  None of which is a winning proposal for the NBA.

Either way, it looks like there will be significantly fewer NBA players in Tokyo than at past Olympics.  If they don't take a break (and even if they do), the only players available will be ones whose teams are already out.  Even if the season is done, though, will they really want to go through a whole NBA season, then fly to Japan a few weeks later?

No matter what they end up doing, the NBA knows their schedule will be heavily condensed in 2021.  An interesting solution that's being considered is playing back-to-back games against the same team in the same arena.  That would certainly help with things like travel, and it makes me wonder if they would consider bringing multiple teams to the same city and recreating their bubble environment to some extent.

My best guess is that the NBA season will be somewhere in the 50-60 game range.  They want to finish at their normal time so that they're back on schedule in 2021-22 (which they won't be able to do if they go later into the summer).  They also want to have fans in the arenas, which may not happen at the start, but will gradually increase as the season goes on.  Which is part of the reason why they want to wait.  But they can't wait too long if they want to play as close to 82 games as possible.

Playoff Kershaw

For all the regular season brilliance during his Hall of Fame career, Clayton Kershaw has developed a bit of a reputation as a postseason "choker."  And it's true that he hasn't been anything close to his regular, dominant self in October.  His career postseason ERA is two points higher than his regular season ERA, and the Dodgers are under .500 in his starts. 

Since the Dodgers are in the playoffs every year, that gets magnified with each season LA doesn't win the World Series.  And that will be the only way to change the narrative.  But it's disingenuous to blame Kershaw's playoff struggles entirely on him.  It's also incredibly unfair to completely ignore those postseason performances where he was his usual dominant self, games like last night's World Series opener, where he was brilliant over six innings and easily could've gone another.

I get it.  Mariano Rivera has five World Series rings and a record 42 postseason saves, but is remembered just as much for three blown saves in the postseason that cost the Yankees the series (1997 ALDS Game 5, 2001 World Series Game 7, 2004 ALCS Game 4).

Just like Rivera, Kershaw has had a decent sample size of postseason outings.  Unlike Rivera, he doesn't have the championships to balance out the failures.  And, I'd argue, Kershaw's struggles have only been magnified simply because the Dodgers are yet to win.  The fact that a lot of them have come in series-clinching losses doesn't help his case.  But, if you look closer, can you really blame him for all of it?

Last year against the Nationals, Kershaw started Game 2 and gave up three runs in six innings but lost to Stephen Strasburg.  Sometimes you end up on the wrong end of a pitcher's duel.  That happens.  Then in Game 5, he came out of the bullpen and got a strikeout to end the top of the seventh.  Dave Roberts left him in to start the eighth, and he gave up solo home runs to Anthony Rendon and Howie Kendrick that tied the game at 3-3.  The Dodgers eventually lost on a Kendrick grand slam in the 10th (that wasn't given up by Kershaw).

In 2014, this run was just beginning and Kershaw was really the only starter the Dodgers had.  He started (and lost) Game 1 of the Division Series against the Cardinals, then came back on short rest in Game 4 in an attempt to stave off elimination.  The Dodgers had 2-0 lead through six and Kershaw had allowed just one hit while striking out nine.  Then St. Louis started the seventh with two singles before Matt Adams hit a monster three-run homer.  Game and series, Cardinals.

The third big one was that crazy Game 5 of the 2017 World Series.  We, of course, know now the reason why the Astros had Kershaw's number when they couldn't hit him at all in game 1 at Dodger Stadium.  And that game was so nuts that you can almost write off his performance as a product of that.  Still, the Dodgers had a 4-0 lead when he gave up a four-spot in the bottom of the fourth, then, after LA scored three in the fifth, he got yanked after walking two batters in the bottom half of the inning.  The first batter the reliever faced was Jose Altuve, who promptly hit a three-run bomb (on a pitch he knew was coming).

That was the first of three straight Kershaw World Series starts that the Dodgers lost.  He went 0-2 against the Red Sox in 2018, a series in which the Dodgers were thoroughly outplayed.  In Game 1, Kershaw wasn't great.  He gave up two runs in the first and five over four innings.  Kershaw gave up another two-spot in the first inning of Game 5, a game in which the Dodgers were held to one run on three hits.

So, while Kershaw would be the first to admit he wasn't at his best in those performances, there are reasons beyond just his pitching that cost LA those games.  Sometimes he was coming out of the bullpen.  Sometimes he was pitching on short rest.  That's not an excuse.  That's what you pay your ace for.  But you also need to consider that he might not be as sharp.  And, if he's pitching in relief, it's probably a high-pressure situation with little to no margin for error.

Likewise, putting it all on Kershaw's shoulders is a pretty heavy burden.  For years, Dave Roberts and Don Mattingly before him didn't trust anybody in the Dodgers' bullpen other than Kenley Jansen.  As a result, Kershaw was sometimes left in too long or called on in relief because he was considered the best option.  Same thing with using him on short rest.  They wouldn't have had to do it if they had any other starters they trusted with the ball (which they now do with Walker Buehler).

You can't really blame him for the offense, either.  Ask Mets fans about your star pitcher not getting any run support.  And even in the games where Kershaw blew a lead, the Dodgers, in most cases, were down only a run or two and the hitters didn't hold up their end of the bargain.  Every mistake is already magnified in the playoffs, even more so when the margin for error is so slim.  Simply put, Clayton Kershaw is NOT the reason the Dodgers haven't won the World Series during this run of regular season dominance and postseason disappointment.

What people don't remember is Game 1 in 2017.  In his first career World Series start, Kershaw was outstanding.  The only run he allowed over seven innings was an Alex Bregman homer.  Kershaw struck out 11 in that game while not walking anyone.  Then there's last night's brilliant start: 6 innings, 1 run (again on a solo homer), 2 hits, 8 strikeouts, 1 walk.

Compare that to another future Hall of Famer--Justin Verlander.  Verlander has pitched in four World Series (2006, 2012, 2017, 2019).  His career record? 0-6 in seven starts (the Tigers and Astros are a combined 1-6 in those games).  Yet, after Houston's 2017 championship (and Verlander's ALCS MVP performance), no one talks about Verlander's postseason struggles anymore.

Justin Verlander's postseason narrative changed because of 2017, and Clayton Kershaw's postseason narrative will almost certainly change once the Dodgers finally win the championship.  And, make no mistake, if the Dodgers do win the series, it'll be because of Clayton Kershaw, not in spite of him.

The Voice of Hockey

Regardless of how good they are or how many other people like them, most sportscasters usually end up with their haters.  Some of those reasons may be ridiculous, but those fans dread the games when their team is being covered by the announcer they don't like.  There are very few exceptions to this rule.  One is Vin Scully.  Another is Doc Emrick.

Doc Emrick didn't just make hockey broadcasts better.  He made them more enjoyable.  He was entertaining and informative, but never in your face about it.  Like Vin Scully, he found a way to seamlessly work in stories and anecdotes, as well as shout outs to random Minor League and junior teams in the most obscure reaches of North America, while not missing a second of the action.

I didn't even realize this until about midway through the Stanley Cup Final, but, when they cut to Doc in his home studio before the game, he had a different jersey hanging on the wall.  And it was the jerseys of these same obscure Minor League and amateur teams.  I'm assuming they're all active teams, but I have no idea.  The point is, the Voice of Hockey took the time to put these teams in the spotlight, however brief it was (and even if most of the people watching had no idea whose jersey it was).

You could also tell during his broadcasts how much he simply loves the sport.  If you've never heard the great Foster Hewitt, the legendary voice of "Hockey Night In Canada" for many years, I highly recommend finding some clips on YouTube.  Doc Emrick is the modern day Foster Hewitt.  He loves hockey and he called the game with such reverence that he made the viewers love it too.

Then there are his phrases.  You could've made a drinking game out of how many times he mentioned a goalie's "paraphernalia" on a given night!  And I had no idea how many adjectives and verbs there were that could be used to describe the action in a hockey game!  Sometimes it felt like he was making them up, yet they all worked perfectly!

He's also the rare play-by-play announcer who didn't need a color guy.  Doc had JD, then Edzo and Pierre (or Bouch), but did he really need them?  There would sometimes be minutes of non-stop back-and-forth action when we didn't hear them at all.  Which isn't meant as a shot at his extremely talented color commentators.  In fact, it's a compliment to them that they were able to work so well with Doc.  After all, in order to work with the best, you've gotta be pretty good yourself.

It wasn't just hockey either.  During the 2012 Olympics, NBC used him as the play-by-play man for water polo.  And suddenly I was enthralled by a preliminary round Croatia-Italy men's water polo match!  The USA basketball team is playing on NBCSN?  Nope!  I'm watching Spain vs. Greece in women's water polo on NBC...just because Doc is on the call!

Perhaps the best tribute I saw paid to Doc Emrick today was one article that mentioned the non-hockey watchers who would see a game and say, "Who's that announcer?  He's really good."  Doc Emrick drew as much praise from the casual non-fans to the hockey die-hards who watch every game.  There's a reason why he's won the Emmy for Outstanding Play-by-Play Announcer eight years in a row!

One of the smartest things NBC did when they acquired the NHL contract was hire Doc Emrick as the play-by-play man.  Bringing in the well-respected and highly-acclaimed lead play-by-play announcer gave them instant credibility.  As their coverage expanded, so did Doc's role.  So, it really shouldn't be a surprise that NHL on NBC broadcasts consistently draw such high praise.

And, since NBC also holds the Olympic rights and the NHL took a break for every Olympics until 2018, that meant Doc was calling those games, too.  That meant he was behind the mic for the epic USA-Canada gold medal game in 2010, still one of the highest-rated hockey broadcasts in history.  It also meant a whole new segment of viewers who don't regularly watch hockey were exposed to Doc's brilliance.

Of course, there were plenty of memorable NHL broadcasts, too.  Doc called the first Winter Classic on that postcard of a New Year's Day in Buffalo.  He was there for the two transcendent stars of this generation--Sidney Crosby and Alex Ovechkin hoisting the Cup.  He was there when the Stanley Cup Final went to Las Vegas.  He wasn't in the Edmonton bubble, but you never would've known it.  Because it felt and sounded like he was there.  In fact, I challenge you to name one hockey moment over the last 15 years that hasn't involved Doc Emrick in some way.

Now he moves into a well-deserved retirement after 50 years of calling the NHL, the last 15 as NBC's lead play-by-play announcer.  Doc won't be gone completely, though.  He'll still contribute to NBC's hockey coverage as a writer and occasionally narrate features.  Which is good, since many of us won't be able to completely cut the cord and will take comfort in hearing that instantly recognizable voice.

NBC has put together a good stable of quality NHL play-by-play announcers, so they have plenty of options to choose from for a replacement.  No matter what, whoever it is will have some huge shoes to fill.  And, with all due respect to Kenny Albert and John Forslund and Gord Miller, none of them are Doc Emrick.

His retirement took us a little by surprise.  But maybe that was the point.  And leave it to Doc Emrick to do it in such a classy way.  He knew that Game 6 of the Stanley Cup Final would be his last broadcast, but didn't make a peep until nearly a month later.  He didn't make it about himself.  He made it about the champion Lightning.  Would you expect anything else?

NFL 2020, Week 6

The COVID-related schedule adjustments have gone from ridiculous to absurd.  Thanks to the Patriots-Broncos game being moved AGAIN, six other teams had games and/or bye weeks moved.  I give the NFL credit for figuring this all out on the fly, which can't be easy, but this is really screwing with other teams now.  The Jets went from playing the Chargers this week to playing the Dolphins.  The Chargers had four games changed...and found out last Sunday that they were suddenly on their bye week.  It's a mess!

And I don't think we've seen the last of games being rescheduled, either.  They're even talking about adding a Week 18 in case they run out of bye week buffers.  Which is beginning to look more and more likely.  But that's an issue for the end of the season.  As for this week...

Texans (1-4) at Titans (4-0): Tennessee-I'll admit it.  I was shocked by what the Titans did on Tuesday.  They weren't even able to practice, yet they went and dominated a good Bills team from the start.  How will they back it up now that they've actually had a normal week (albeit a short one)?  As for the Texans, it was only one game, but the post-Bill O'Brien Era is off to a good start.  Although, they were playing Jacksonville, so this will be a much more telling test.

Bengals (1-3-1) at Colts (3-2): Indianapolis-Indianapolis saw its three-game winning streak snapped last week by the Browns.  Cincinnati, meanwhile, was all kinds of embarrassed in Baltimore.  The Bengals are still leaps and bounds better than they were last year, but they've still got a ways to go.  As for the Colts, I don't know what type of team they are.  I'm not sure if they do, either.  One week they look great, the next week they look terrible.  Which team will show up against the Bengals?

Falcons (0-5) at Vikings (1-4): Minnesota-My prediction about Dan Quinn turned out to be correct.  I just didn't think it would happen this quickly.  But, then again, the Falcons had been going downhill ever since their Super Bowl collapse, so it was only a matter of time.  And, fun fact, Atlanta is the only non-New York winless team in the NFL!  It should stay that way against the Vikings, who should've kicked the field goal to finish off the upset in Seattle last week.

Broncos (1-3) at Patriots (2-2): New England-Let's try this again.  Also, I've gotta say that the two teams screwed the most by this whole COVID situation are Denver and Pittsburgh.  First, the Steelers effectively lost their bye.  Now the Broncos have, as well.  And they're still not even sure if they'll play this week since there are evidently still positive tests on the Patriots.  But let's assume they do play.  And if they do, it seems likely that the Patriots will do what the Titans did on Tuesday.

Washington (1-4) at Giants (0-5): Giants-An NFC East division game!  Which means one of them definitely has to not lose!  And I actually think there's a good chance that'll be the Giants.  They actually resembled an NFL team last week!  Will they be able to keep it up this week?  If they don't, I don't know when they'll get a win.  Because this is one of those rare times they'll actually be the better team on the field.

Ravens (4-1) at Eagles (1-3-1): Baltimore-Apparently the Ravens weren't very happy that the Bengals kicked a field goal at the end of the game to avoid a shutout last week.  Maybe you should look in the mirror and put some blame on yourselves for even setting up that situation.  If you want the shutout, earn it!  And, frankly, it doesn't really matter how many points the defense gives up when the offense is scoring 30 a game!

Browns (4-1) at Steelers (4-0): Pittsburgh-Browns-Steelers is the No. 1 game on CBS!  When was the last time that happened?  And it should be!  Pittsburgh might be the best team in the AFC (although Kansas City would have something to say about that), while Cleveland is playing like that team we thought we'd see last year.  Hopefully this one lives up to the hype and isn't marred by a brawl like the last time they met!  I doubt it will.  Not just because that was an ugly situation, but because the stakes are much higher, even in Week 6.

Bears (4-1) at Panthers (3-2): Chicago-Believe it or not, the Panthers are in a three-way tie for first place in the NFC South!  It's made even more impressive when you consider how low the expectations were entering this season, and Carolina lived up to them in the first two weeks!  But now they've won three in a row and play the equally surprising Bears, who need to keep winning if they want to keep pace with the Packers.  This should actually be a pretty entertaining game.  And one I think the Bears will win.

Lions (1-3) at Jaguars (1-4): Jacksonville-Who do you think would win a fight between an actual jaguar and an actual lion?  It would be a pretty cool fight, wouldn't it?  As for the football teams with those names, not so much.  Jacksonville hasn't won since upsetting the Colts in Week 1, while the Lions had two solid efforts against Arizona and New Orleans before their bye.  Which all points towards a Detroit victory.  For some reason, I think Jacksonville wins, though.

Jets (0-5) at Dolphins (2-3): Miami-At least we don't have that stupid Jets-Dolphins back-to-back on the schedule anymore!  But this game will likely be a difficult one for both teams.  The Jets were supposed to be across the country, while the Dolphins were supposed to be in Denver.  Instead, they're playing each other in South Florida.  And, let's not forget, Miami was in San Francisco last week.  That's a big shock on the body!  Fortunately, the Dolphins are a better team than the mess that is the Jets.

Packers (4-0) at Buccaneers (3-2): Green Bay-FOX didn't even schedule another late game, so it's a full national audience for the Battle of the Bays.  Brady had his first real stinker as a Buc last week in Chicago, and they still could've won that game had he remembered what down it was!  I expect him to bounce back this week.  He'll need to for them to have any chance against the Packers, who also had an extended break since their bye was last week.  Hopefully the week off didn't mess with the offensive mojo they had over their first four games.

Rams (4-1) at 49ers (2-3): Rams-San Francisco's streak remains in tact!  The 49ers are still undefeated in New York and winless in San Francisco.  And it's not just that they haven't won a home game, it's how bad they've looked doing it.  The Eagles came in winless and outplayed them the entire game.  Then they get crushed by the Dolphins.  Neither of those teams is anywhere near as good as the Rams.  (Also, I know Al Michaels lives in LA, but why did they schedule two Sunday night games in San Francisco three weeks apart?)

Chiefs (4-1) at Bills (4-1): Kansas City-Thursday Night Football on Monday afternoon/evening!  It's the Chiefs' second last-minute Monday night game of the season, while the Bills are coming off a short week.  I do expect them to put forward a better effort than they did against the Titans, though.  I think the circumstances surrounding that game really affected them.  Fortunately, they'll enter this game with a lot more certainty.  Unfortunately, their opponent is the Kansas City Chiefs.

Cardinals (3-2) at Cowboys (2-3): Dallas-Was last week a turning point for the first-place Dallas Cowboys?  That's right--the first-place Dallas Cowboys.  As bad as the Cowboys have been over the first five weeks of the season, the rest of the NFC East is even worse, so they're still sitting in a pretty good position.  Imagine what'll happen when they actually start playing well!  Although, they're, of course, without Dak Prescott after he suffered that gruesome ankle injury.  But that's why you sign a seasoned veteran like Andy Dalton to be your backup.  Losing Dak obviously hurts, but having Dalton softens that blow tremendously.  They'll be just fine with him under center.

Last Week: 10-4
Overall: 54-22-1

Working In the Wild Card Series

Almost as soon as Major League Baseball announced that this year's postseason field would be expanded to 16 teams, people began wondering whether that change would be permanent.  While opinions on that subject seem to be mixed, there's an overwhelming sense that at least some sort of postseason expansion will become permanent.  It probably won't be 16 teams, which I think everyone agrees is excessive and unnecessary, but it also seems likely that the field will be larger than 10.  How big?  That's up to the owners and players to decide.

There's also a question of whether they'll go back to the single Wild Card Game in each league or stick with the best-of-three Wild Card Series, which is something that a lot of people have been clamoring for ever since the Wild Card Game came into existence.  Doing that, however, would also result in the schedule having to be altered, which is not a good idea.

Just like in 2012, when they didn't add the Wild Card Game until the postseason schedule was already set and had to shoehorn it in, they had to adjust this year's postseason schedule to accommodate the Wild Card Series.  Suddenly one day had to become three, then another day afterwards for travel.  They were able to do this, of course, by eliminating the unnecessary travel days during the Division Series and LCS.  But, as we've seen, that's having an impact, too.

The Rays played five days in a row during the Division Series, had one day off, then were scheduled for seven games in seven days against the Astros.  That's normal in the regular season, but it's something totally foreign in the playoffs.  And, I'd argue, how we've seen the no off days thing play out hasn't exactly been a good thing.

Houston's pitching staff was so depleted that they used six rookies in Game 5--of a series they were trailing 3-1!  If that had been by choice, that'd be one thing.  But they used six rookie pitchers in an elimination game out of necessity.  They didn't have anybody else.  It worked out for the Astros, but the point remains.  Playing 14 straight days in the middle of June is one thing.  You can get away with doing a staff game or all rookies.  Trying to do it in Game 5 of a postseason series is vastly different.

We've seen more openers and staff games than ever before this postseason.  And, again, it's not by choice.  It's out of necessity.  Some might argue that this is good, since it more closely mirrors the regular season.  But it's asking too much of relievers to be available for such high-stress games on so many consecutive days.  And not to mention how teams can't line up starters!

Critics love to complain about the number of off days in the baseball playoffs, but I think we're seeing this year how necessary they actually are.  MLB is able to get away with not having any this year because they're doing the Texas/San Diego bubbles, but this change will almost certainly be limited to this year.  They'll need to have travel days again next season, when teams are (hopefully) playing in their own ballparks in front of their fans.

And that brings me to the problem that permanently turning the Wild Card Game into the Wild Card Series would create.  The regular season ends on Sunday, with the Wild Card Games on Tuesday and Wednesday and the Division Series starting on Thursday and Friday.  But if you change that single game to best-of-three, you're going from Tuesday-Friday, which means the Division Series can't start until Saturday and Sunday.

I'm just playing a hunch that MLB's TV partners wouldn't be too keen on starting the Division Series on the weekend, opposite college football on Saturday and with four games opposite the NFL on Sunday.  Especially with their new TV contracts with FOX and TBS set to kick in.  Likewise, the midweek daytime Wild Card Series games probably won't go over as well with TBS, FOX or the owners after life returns to normal and people are at work/school during the day.

But, for the sake of argument, let's just go with it and say they expand the Wild Card round to best-of-three.  It takes seven days to play a five-game Division Series with travel, so now you're starting the LCS on Sunday and Monday.  That moves Game 7 off Sunday night, which FOX actually likes since they can promote it all day during football.  Instead your Game 7's would be on Monday and Tuesday night.

When MLB moved Game 1 of the World Series from Wednesday night to Tuesday night, they eliminated the extra off day after the LCS.  That also eliminated their rain out buffer.  It hasn't happened, but the potential exists that, if there was a Game 6 or 7 rain out in the LCS, a team could have to play Game 7 on Monday night, then turn around and immediately start the World Series the next night.  I've always thought that was an unfair thing to ask.

Since FOX has Thursday Night Football, though, the World Series can't start on a Thursday.  Which means they'd have to put the buffer day back and put the World Series on a Friday-Saturday, Monday-Tuesday-Wednesday, Friday-Saturday schedule.  On the surface, that isn't horrible since it avoids the NFL's two big nights.  But it also puts a potential Game 7 on a Saturday night, which they wouldn't like.  (The World Series started on a Saturday and Game 7 was on a Sunday for years until they changed it in 2007 because they got tired of the lower weekend ratings.)

Here's how that schedule would work, compared to what the usual schedule is:

Wild Card: Tuesday-Thursday, Wednesday-Friday (Tuesday, Wednesday)
Division Series: Saturday-Friday, Sunday-Saturday (Thursday-Wednesday, Friday-Thursday)
LCS: Sunday-Monday, Monday-Tuesday (Friday-Saturday, Saturday-Sunday)
World Series: Friday-Saturday (Tuesday-Wednesday)

It could easily be done and it would work.  I'm not sure it would actually be better, though.  So, it really might come down to how agreeable everyone is to making those adjustments.  Either way, teams will eventually travel again, which means the off days will have to return.  And teams traveling means actual home games in packed ballparks.  Which something I think we can all agree we want.

The Neverending GOAT Debate

Two championships won on Sunday renewed the debate about who's the "Greatest of All-time" in both of those sports.  One is men's tennis, where Rafael Nadal won what seems like his 35th consecutive French Open to tie Roger Federer's record for the most career Grand Slam titles.  The other is basketball, where LeBron James won his fourth career championship--with his third different team.

There's nothing wrong with a good GOAT debate.  Everyone has their opinion and their reasons for it, and you're not going to convince them that your guy is better.  The Jordan people will always be Jordan people and the LeBron people will always be the LeBron people.  Likewise, the Roger people will always be the Roger people and the Rafa people will always be the Rafa people.

Part of what makes those debates so fun, though, is also what makes them incredibly frustrating.  There's no objective standard that qualifies somebody as the "Greatest."  There also frequently tends to be a recency bias, completely forgetting about players from different eras.  Which is why there's no "right" answer in the GOAT debate.  Because it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

Of course, there are exceptions to the rule.  Mariano Rivera is widely accepted as the Greatest Closer in history.  Hockey has its "Holy Trinity" of Wayne Gretzky, Gordie Howe and Bobby Orr, but Gretzky is called "The Great One" for a reason.  Just like Muhammad Ali was "The Greatest" (even if there are other boxers worthy of at least being in the conversation).  And you'll get very few arguments about Michael Phelps and Usain Bolt as the Greatest Swimmer and Greatest Sprinter ever.  But, for the most part, there's no "right" answer in the GOAT debate.

Take Serena Williams.  A lot of people consider her the women's tennis GOAT.  Her next Grand Slam title will be her 24th, tying the all-time record.  She's been the face of women's tennis for two decades, and her longevity is definitely an argument that works in her favor.  But Serena's never really had a rival.  When she's healthy, she wins.  When she isn't, she doesn't.

Chrissie and Martina had each other (and they both won 18).  Steffi Graf had Monica Seles.  Serena has won the Serena Slam twice and won Olympic gold in London.  Steffi won the Golden Slam in 1988 and won every Grand Slam tournament at least four times.  I'm not saying your wrong if you think Serena is the GOAT.  But you aren't wrong if you prefer one of the others, either.  (For the record, I think it's Graf.)

Likewise, on the men's side, the GOAT debate is far from over.  The Big Three are ranked 1-1-3 in all-time Grand Slam titles, and does anybody really think they're done?  The totals will probably change in Australia.  None of us know how it'll shake out once it's all said and done (personally, I think Djokovic will end up with the most).  And can you really say one is better than his two rivals?

They've all won the career Grand Slam, and they've all dominated one particular tournament--Nadal at the French, Djokovic in Australia and Federer at Wimbledon.  Nadal also has an Olympic gold medal from Beijing, but he's won two-thirds of his Grand Slam titles at the same tournament.  Federer, meanwhile, had a five-year winning streak at two separate Slams (with them overlapping at Wimbledon and the US Open from 2004-07).  And Djokovic has beaten both of them at their signature event!

While you'd get no argument from me if you put them at 1-2-3 on the all-time list, you can't forget the all-time great men's players from the past.  Rod Laver won the Grand Slam twice.  Jimmy Connors only played the Australian Open twice in his entire career--winning in 1974 and making the final in 1975.  And let's not forget Pete Sampras, either!

Another active athlete who commonly has GOAT status conferred upon him is Tom Brady.  Once again, who's to define what makes the "Greatest Quarterback Ever."  Are Brady's Super Bowl records and the Patriots' 20-year run of dominance enough?  For some, they are.  Others might prefer someone else (for whatever reason).  And they wouldn't be wrong.

That brings me to LeBron.  After the Lakers won on Sunday, he tweeted "now I'll get some respect" or something along those lines.  As if to imply LeBron hadn't earned peoples' respect a long time ago.  But that doesn't mean he should be considered the GOAT, period, end of sentence without even entertaining a conversation.  Because that's disingenuous to all of the other greats.

It commonly comes down to a debate between LeBron and Michael Jordan.  And it can generally be broken down along age lines.  Older fans tend to prefer Jordan, while younger fans (who only know Jordan as the owner of the Hornets) think it's LeBron.  As if they're the only two players who've ever played basketball.

Jordan, obviously, had the six championships.  LeBron is now at four, and he's the first to win with three different teams.  However, Jordan never lost the NBA Finals.  LeBron has lost six.  The Bulls were built around Jordan.  LeBron was essentially able to build his own team in both Miami and LA.  And, yes, LeBron's team has been to the Finals in nine of the last 10 years, a remarkable run to be sure, but against what competition?  He didn't really face much of a challenge in the Eastern Conference, and the Finals were predictable matchups, too!  The Heat faced the Spurs back-to-back and the Cavs played the Warriors four straight times!

The Jordan Camp can make a pretty compelling argument.  So can the LeBron Camp.  Neither side is necessarily "wrong."  It's just a matter of preference.  And good luck convincing somebody who disagrees with you to come over to your side.

Although, if you're using championships as your criterion, why aren't we talking about Bill Russell?  Or how about Kareem?  Why isn't Kareem ever mentioned in the GOAT conversation?  Or Wilt Chamberlain?  Why is it just Michael vs. LeBron?

My point is that there's no "right" answer when discussing the GOAT.  We could both be asked to create our all-time team, and my list might look completely different than yours!  You can count championships or Grand Slam titles, but those are simply objective stats.  Opinions are subjective.  And, as long as we all have our own opinions, the GOAT debates will continue.

NFL 2020, Week 5

The NFL season has officially become a mess!  For the second straight week, they've had to reschedule multiple games because of the Titans' and Patriots' COVID outbreaks.  And it's even going to trickle into next week, since the Bills can't play on Tuesday, then turn around and play again on Thursday.  But...at least they're still playing football!

And they might keep playing football for an extra week.  One of the proposals is to have a Week 18 for any potential make-up games, but I'm not sure that would actually help anything, seeing as its the same teams that are having games rescheduled.  A better plan might be for them to actually follow the protocols!

Thursday Night: Tampa Bay (Loss)

Panthers (2-2) at Falcons (0-4): Carolina-Bill O'Brien is out in Houston, and Falcons coach Dan Quinn may soon be joining him.  Because it's been nothing but downhill since Atlanta blew the Super Bowl four years ago.  The Falcons are 0-4 and things don't like like they're getting any better anytime soon.  Quinn's seat will be white hot after his team drops another one to suddenly solid Carolina.

Raiders (2-2) at Chiefs (4-0): Kansas City-Whatever crazy obstacle you throw at the Chiefs, it doesn't seem to make a difference.  An impromptu Monday night game proved no issue for Patrick Mahomes and Co., who became the first team in NFL history to start 4-0 four years in a row.  The chances of that becoming 5-0 look pretty good as they welcome the Raiders to Arrowhead.

Cardinals (2-2) at Jets (0-4): Arizona-It looks like this one will be played as originally scheduled after the Jets' scare with a false positive on Friday.  But that did cost them a day of practice, which would've been important for Joe Flacco, who'll make his first start for the team this week.  The Cardinals would've been favored to win this game anyway, but Flacco might've been able to keep it competitive had he been able to practice with the first team all week.

Eagles (1-2-1) at Steelers (3-0): Pittsburgh-Pittsburgh definitely got the short end of the stick with everything that went on last week.  The Steelers lost their bye week and never really got one since they were still preparing for a game as late as Thursday.  So they've got every reason to be upset about their situation.  And they'll take out their frustration on the Eagles.

Rams (3-1) at Washington (1-3): Rams-Washington has officially given up on Dwayne Haskins.  That didn't take long, did it?  I can't really say he was the problem, though.  The team simply isn't very good.  The Rams, meanwhile, are showing that versatility that took them to the Super Bowl two years ago.  They scored 32 points at Buffalo and loss, then scored only 17 against the Giants and won.  So, regardless of what type of game Washington makes them play, they'll be ready for it.

Bengals (1-2-1) at Ravens (3-1): Baltimore-Nice rebound for the Ravens after that loss to the Chiefs.  It was their third time scoring at least 30 points this season.  Will they make it four against the Bengals?  I don't see why not.  Cincinnati followed up its tie against the Eagles by beating Jacksonville, but the Ravens are in a completely different league.  This'll be the biggest test Joe Burrow has faced yet in his brief NFL career.

Jaguars (1-3) at Texans (0-4): Houston-There was definitely more to the Texans' 0-4 start than just Bill O'Brien.  In fact, I think the schedule was one of the primary reasons.  But they felt the need for a culture change in Houston, so they made the move.  O'Brien's out, Romeo Crennel's in.  We'll see how much of a difference that actually makes as they take on the Jaguars, the first team on their schedule this season the Texans know they're better than.

Dolphins (1-3) at 49ers (2-2): San Francisco-That was a bad loss last week for the 49ers, who are still yet to win a game outside Met Life Stadium this season (granted it's only a two-game sample size, but still).  With the NFC West figuring to be competitive all year, they'll need to fix that quick.  Fortunately their opponent this week is the Dolphins.

Colts (3-1) at Browns (3-1): Cleveland-This is the version of the Cleveland Browns we thought we'd get last season!  Not only are they good, they're entertaining to watch!  That was one of the most impressive offensive performances by a Cleveland team in long time last week.  They might get slowed down a little bit by a Colts team that has allowed 29 points total in its last three games, but I still think the Browns will score enough to continue their great start.

Giants (0-4) at Cowboys (1-3): Dallas-Two NFC East teams are playing each other, which means (at least) one of them has to not lose!  It really is embarrassing how bad the division is this season.  A combined 3-12-1, and one of the wins was Washington over Philly, so it doesn't really count.  But I digress.  Maybe playing the Giants is a chance for Dallas to right the ship.  I still think the Cowboys are one of the most talented teams in the NFC.  And, depending on how the Philly and Washington games go, they could even end the day in first place.  At 2-3.

Vikings (1-3) at Seahawks (4-0): Seattle-Seattle is threatening Kansas City's perch atop the NFL power rankings.  The Seahawks' offense, frankly, has looked unstoppable so far!  And I don't see any reason why that should change against a Vikings team that has allowed at least 23 points in every game this season.  Russell Wilson and Co. might get that in the first half, as Seattle becomes the first NFC team to reach 5-0.

Broncos (1-3) at Patriots (2-2): New England-For the second straight week, the Patriots see their Sunday afternoon game moved to Monday night.  First it was because of Cam Newton, now because of Stephon Gilmore.  Even after everything that went down last week, New England still felt like it could've beaten Kansas City.  The Patriots even think they were cheated out of a win on that fumble call in the fourth quarter (I wouldn't know...I was watching the Yankees).  This week, they should be able to pull it out.

Chargers (1-3) at Saints (2-2): New Orleans-Drew Brees takes on the franchise where he got his start for perhaps the final time.  The Saints have been very un-Saints like over the past few weeks, and that started with their Week 2 Monday night loss in Las Vegas.  Will they revert to form in their second (actually scheduled) Monday night game of the season.  As for their opponent, Justin Herbert has officially been named the Chargers' starter, which we all knew was going to happen as soon as he entered the game against the Chiefs.  The future Hall of Famer will get the better of him in this one, though.

Bills (4-0) at Titans (3-0): Buffalo-Sixteen days later, the Titans will finally take the field again!  Hopefully!  You have to wonder how many reps they've gotten since their facility was shut down, but you've gotta think it can't be too many.  And that doesn't bode well against a Bills team that's now been given two extra days to prepare.  The NFL's first Tuesday game in 10 years will end with somebody no longer being undefeated.  I think there's a pretty good chance it'll be the team that hasn't played in two weeks and screwed up the schedule for everyone else!  (I also agree with those who are calling for the Titans to forfeit if they again can't play.)

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 8-7
Season: 44-19-1

Goalies, Goalies Everywhere

In a normal year, the NHL regular season would be starting right about now.  As we know, this year has been anything but normal.  The Stanley Cup was only just awarded less than two weeks ago and, after initially saying they were shooting for Dec. 1, Gary Bettman announced that next season won't start until Jan. 1.  Which gives them a three-month offseason (which is exactly the same as it would've been had the season ended and started on time).

That busy offseason got underway earlier this week with the Draft.  Next up is free agency, which begins tomorrow.  And if any team's looking for a veteran goalie, they're in luck.  Because I've never seen so many free agent goalies available in the same year.

It's not just that they're veteran goalies, either.  We're talking about Vezina winners, Stanley Cup champions and at least one future Hall of Famer.  Some are the victims of youth movements, others are cap casualties, some are just looking for another opportunity.  Here's the crazy thing, though: they can all still contribute.  Whether it's as a starter, a backup or a mentor, every one of them has value.  And, with the number of back-to-backs teams will most likely have to play next season, a good backup is going to be key.

I should probably include the trade market here, too.  Minnesota already traded Devan Dubnyk to San Jose, Matt Murray went from Pittsburgh to Ottawa, and everyone knows that Vegas has been actively shopping Marc-Andre Fluery, who could end up being a consolation prize for those teams who strike out with free agents.  (Wouldn't it be crazy if he stays with the Golden Knights next season as the backup, then goes to Seattle to become the starter for another expansion franchise?)

So, where are they gonna end up?  It really depends on who's willing to accept what role and how much money.  I also think it's likely that they won't all land somewhere.  Here's my best guess on where some of those top available goalies might end up, either as a starter or a backup...

Henrik Lundqvist: You knew the most likely solution to the Rangers' three-goalie problem would be buying out Hank, and that's exactly what happened.  It's still crazy to think he'll pull a Marty Brodeur and end his career in a different jersey, though.  At 38, Lundqvist probably isn't an everyday starter anymore, but he's still got a shelf life and will end up somewhere.  Washington has shown interest and may even give him a chance to start.  The Capitals are the clear frontrunner and I'd be surprise if he signs with anyone else.  New team: Capitals

Braden Holtby: Washington has an opening in goal because Braden Holtby is a free agent and unlikely to re-sign.  I'm a little surprised by that, honestly.  Holtby's only 31 and was the Caps' starter when they won the Cup.  He'll want to start and command a multi-year deal, which he'll get from a Cup contender.  A team like Chicago (more on the Blackhawks below) or Minnesota.  New team: Blackhawks

Corey Crawford: The three-time Cup winner joined this crazy free agent list when the Blackhawks informed him that he wouldn't be re-signed.  Even at 35, I think Crawford is still a starter.  The question is where?  Now that they've traded Dubnyk, Minnesota's going to be aggressive in the goalie market.  They'll make a push for several of these guys, but, coming from a division rival, Crawford is the one they know best.  New team: Wild

Corey Schneider: Here's where it starts to get interesting.  Schneider was put on waivers to clear the way for Mackenzie Blackwood on the rebuilding Devils.  And, frankly, he's going to be a backup or mentor wherever he signs.  Which could limit his market.  He'll probably be one of the last goalies off the board, and he may have to wait until the season starts, when he may be called upon because of an injury.  New team: Canucks

Jacob Markstrom: With Thatcher Demko's emergence during the playoffs, the Canucks will have a much easier time parting with Markstrom than they otherwise would have.  They'll make an attempt to re-sign him and go a 1-1A situation, but I think it's more likely he goes elsewhere for the chance to start.  That chance could come with another team in Western Canada that has a very good chance of being big time contenders next season.  New team: Oilers

Anton Khudobin: Khudobin was a revelation during the playoffs, leading the Stars to the Stanley Cup Final after their starter, Ben Bishop, was deemed unfit to play.  Which you would think will land Khudobin an opportunity as a full-time starter somewhere else.  He's 34, so nothing long-term, but he should be able to land a one- or two-year deal from a team that's got a young goalie waiting in the wings but isn't quite ready to be an NHL starter yet.  New team: Red Wings

Jimmy Howard: At this point in his career, Jimmy Howard's gonna have to accept the fact that he's a backup.  Detroit was ready to move on, and rightfully so.  That doesn't mean Howard has no value, however.  He's somebody you can feel comfortable plugging in for the second game of a back-to-back, especially if you have a young starter.  A team like, say, the New Jersey Devils.  New team: Devils

Cam Talbot: Cam Talbot's an interesting case.  His market could very well be determined by who goes where and when.  Talbot's also that guy who you can see as either a starter or a backup, depending on where he signs.  So, that actually gives him more options than some of the others on this list.  He's also perhaps the most likely to re-sign with his current team.  New team: Flames

Thomas Greiss: Part of the reason for the Islanders' success over the past few seasons has been their really good 1-1A goalie situation with Greiss and Semyon Varlamov.  But I doubt they're both happy with that arrangement, and, as a free agent, Greiss has a chance to get out of it if he wants.  Problem is, I'm not sure he's a full-time starter.  But as a 1A or co-starter, he's great, and someone will give him that opportunity.  Maybe even a Stanley Cup finalist.  New team: Stars

Craig Anderson: Anderson's been in Ottawa for 10 years, but is likely out now that the Senators have traded for Murray.  He's 39, so if he signs anywhere, it'll be as a backup.  Or he could just stay in Ottawa and be perfectly content backing up Murray.  There's always the third option, of course, and that's retirement.  I'll just play a hunch that he puts retirement off and plays one last season, perhaps on a team that will lose one of its goalies but has a 25-year-old waiting in the wings.  New team: Islanders

Not included here are the two big trade candidates: Fleury and Martin Jones.  Frankly, I think Jones is likely to stay in San Jose this season before being taken No. 1 by the Kraken in the expansion draft.  As for Fleury, he'll be very tough for the Knights to move unless they eat a lot of his contract.  So I really have no idea what's gonna happen there.  Because somebody might decide they want Fleury and they want him as a starter, which will have a ripple effect on all of these free agents.

It's NOT a Federal Entity

Once again, Congress has inserted itself into a conversation that isn't really any of its business, nor did anyone request its involvement.  But, as we've seen during this entire political season, as long as one person in Washington decides something is important, it doesn't actually matter what anyone else thinks.  Nor does it matter when the bill they pass into law is a massive overreach of Congressional authority.  Like the one they passed last week.

Crafted mainly as a response to the Larry Nasser scandal, the "Empowering Olympic, Paralympic and Amateur Athletes Act of 2020", which passed unanimously in the House, would give Congress additional oversight over the USOPC and national governing bodies.  It would give them the authority to remove the board of directors or even decertify the NGB's for noncompliance while also more than doubling the organization's funding for the U.S. Center for SafeSport.

While I appreciate the fact that the point of this bill is to protect athletes from abuse, I still have a number of problems with it.  The main one is that the USOPC doesn't answer to Congress!  The USOPC is the only national Olympic committee in the world that doesn't receive any federal funding.  Zero!  So why should Congress have any control over an organization that receives no federal funding?

That's not the case virtually everywhere else in the world.  Most other countries have sport ministers, government employees whose responsibilities include oversight of the NOC.  In those nations, the NOC is essentially a federal organization, so governmental oversight makes complete sense.  The USOPC, however, is a private entity.  How many other private entities does Congress have any control over?

More importantly, however, this bill puts the U.S. at risk of IOC suspension.  It's a direct violation of the IOC Charter, which allows the IOC Executive Board to take action "if the constitution, law or other regulations in force in the country concerned, or any act by any Governmental or other body, causes the activity of the NOC or the making or expression of its will to be hampered."

The IOC is very serious about this clause.  In fact, it's probably the single biggest provision in the Olympic Charter that they take most seriously.  They don't want any governmental interference in NOCs.  Period!  Kuwait had a four-year suspension because of it, causing the first-ever Kuwaiti gold medalist to win it as an "Independent Olympic Athlete" in Rio.  They suspended India for it.  They're also concerned about the situation in Italy, which is hosting the Winter Games five and a half years from now.

I'm sure the degree to which Congress knows or even cares that this is a possibility is probably pretty low.  But the USOPC sure knows, which is why they were initially opposed to the bill (the USOPC has since gotten on board and released a statement declaring its support almost immediately after it passed).  And who's going to be in charge of making sure that doesn't happen?  Not Congress!

It would obviously be a drastic step for the IOC to suspend the United States, even if it's during a non-Games period.  And, yes, it's also highly unlikely.  That would be a major embarrassment for USOPC, which will make sure it doesn't get to that point.  But that doesn't change the fact that the possibility does exist when it didn't last week.

And there's no denying that it would send a pretty strong message, too.  The IOC had no problem suspending Russia for its doping problems.  That's obviously a vastly different situation, but there were people who thought the IOC would never make such a move when such a powerful country was involved.  And if they're willing to suspend Russia, they'd probably have no issue suspending the U.S., too.  Which would, in turn, tell the other 204 NOCs that any governmental interference is an absolute no-no.

Fortunately, we'll probably never be in that situation.  A lot of the changes required in this legislation are things the USOPC and NGBs were already in the process of implementing.  The Nasser scandal exposed a number of problems that needed to be addressed.  Those problems are being fixed!  And they'd be in the process of being fixed with or without a nudge from Congress!

Some of the changes already in the works are greater transparency, more USOPC oversight of the national sports organizations, and increased funding for the SafeSport center.  It's also become easier (and safer) for athletes to report concerns, and there will be greater athlete representation on boards and national committees moving forward.  So, the provisions of the bill should really be a non-issue.

But that's not the point.  The point is that the USOPC is NOT a federal entity!  Thus, the federal government should NOT be involved in how that organization is run.  Especially when their involvement is unwanted, unnecessary, and directly puts that organization at risk of running afoul of the international organization to which it belongs (and is the most significant member).

Reform was needed.  There's no denying that.  That's the whole point of this bill.  It was designed to protect athletes from abuse and give them a safe place to play the sports they love.  Neither of which is a bad thing.  So I'm not going to fault Congress for their intentions.  Likewise, I have a hard time believing the IOC would actually suspend the USOPC because of this bill, should it become law.

So, in the end, the passage of this bill may not actually have any impact on the USOPC's standing in the Olympic movement.  But that doesn't change the fact that Congress has once again stuck its nose where it doesn't belong.  The USOPC is not a federal organization.  Thus, Congress should stay out if it.  Even though we all know they won't.

NFL 2020, Week 4

When the NFL decided to hold the season as normal without a buffer, they knew that they were taking a big risk.  And, sure enough, we're only at Week 4 and the schedule has already been thrown out of whack because of COVID.  They were originally going to try and keep the Titans-Steelers game this week, but as more and more Tennessee players tested positive, postponing it was the only option.

Then we got news that Cam Newton tested positive, which gave us our second postponement of the weekend.  There's still a chance Patriots-Chiefs will be able to be played on Tuesday night, but who knows at this point?

The NFL knew that this was a possibility, but two COVID postponements in the same week obviously throws everything into question.  And, unlike Baseball, which was able to schedule doubleheaders to make up games, the NFL doesn't have that option.  And they're not all going to be as easy to reschedule as Steelers-Titans. 

So, it's going to be very interesting to see how this all plays out over the coming weeks, as the NFL tries to chart this incredibly difficult path of trying to manage COVID outbreaks and finish its season at the same time.  Fortunately it's only been two games impacted so far (three if you count the Steelers-Ravens game that was also rescheduled).  But I have a feeling there will be more.

Thursday Night: Denver (Loss)

Jaguars (1-2) at Bengals (0-2-1): Cincinnati-Joe Burrow came close to getting his first win last week, but apparently it's still an NFL rule that there has to be a random early-season tie every year.  The win could come this week, though, as the Bengals host Jacksonville.  After the Jaguars beat the Colts in Week 1, there was some hope they might actually be competitive this season.  Then they turned in that performance against the Dolphins on national TV and reminded us that they won't.

Browns (2-1) at Cowboys (1-2): Dallas-Dallas may be 1-2 (and could easily be 0-3), but I'm still high on the Cowboys.  Playing in a terrible division obviously helps, but they've already been to the West Coast twice and held their own in both close losses.  So that 1-2 record shouldn't be cause for alarm.  And how about the Cleveland Browns, who are finally above .500 for the first time in six years?!  It'll only last one week, though, as they'll drop back down to 2-2.

Saints (1-2) at Lions (1-2): New Orleans-Don't let the Saints' record fool you.  They're still one of the best teams in the NFL.  And this should be their chance to even their record back up.  Because, as impressive as the Lions were last week against the Cardinals, they still aren't in the same league as New Orleans.  The Saints rebound after those two straight losses.

Seahawks (3-0) at Dolphins (1-2): Seattle-Every team in the NFC West is over .500, but it's the Seahawks who lead the pack at 3-0.  Russell Wilson has looked like an MVP candidate, and the Seattle offense has scored at least 35 points in every game.  It's hard not to see that continuing in Miami.

Chargers (1-2) at Buccaneers (2-1): Tampa Bay-Good things are happening in Tampa.  The Lightning won the Cup, the Rays won their Wild Card Series, and the Bucs are in first place.  It took a little while for them to get going, but we got our first true Bradyesque performance last week in Denver.  I think that's what we'll be able to expect from the Tampa Bay offense moving forward.  And they'll stay in first place after moving to 3-1.

Ravens (2-1) at Washington (1-2): Baltimore-Believe it or not, Washington is technically in first place (and has been all season).  Oh, how the NFC East has fallen!  After that Week 1 upset, they managed to score just 35 points combined in road losses to Arizona and Cleveland.  Lamar Jackson can do that in a half!  The Ravens were outclassed by the Chiefs on Monday night, but should be able to rebound against an inferior opponent.

Cardinals (2-1) at Panthers (1-2): Arizona-Last week, both of these teams surprised me.  The Cardinals, who looked awesome in their first two games, lost at home to Detroit.  And the Panthers, who aren't very good and played like it in their first two games, went into SoFi Stadium and beat the Chargers.  That might've just been a one-week glitch.  Or it might've been a sign of a turnaround (on both sides).  I guess we'll find out this week.

Vikings (0-3) at Texans (0-3): Houston-If there was ever a must-win Week 4 game, this is it.  Based on their early schedule, the Texans being 0-3 right now can't be too much of a surprise.  That was a brutal stretch to start the season, and it'll only get easier from here.  Minnesota, though, has been extremely disappointing.  No one thought the Vikings would be 0-3, and they really can't afford to make it 0-4.  Not with the Bears suddenly relevant again.  Alas, I think that's exactly what they'll be.

Giants (0-3) at Rams (2-1): Rams-We saw the Saquon Barkley-less Giants for the first time last week, and it wasn't pretty!  It's going to be a struggle for them to score all year.  The Rams, meanwhile, are undefeated against the NFC Least this season.  And, even though they lost to the Bills last week, their offense is firing on all cylinders.  That shouldn't change as they play in their new football palace for the first time since Opening Night.

Colts (2-1) at Bears (3-0): Chicago-Can you believe it's been almost 10 years since these two met in the Super Bowl?!  It would be a stretch to say they're on track for a rematch in February, but they are both off to surprisingly strong starts.  The Colts have rebounded nicely after that opening loss to Jacksonville, while the Bears have gotten the Super Bowl MVP version of Nick Foles.  He'll need to keep it up if they want to keep pace with the Packers in the game that was moved to the national game after the Patriots-Chiefs postponement.

Bills (3-0) at Raiders (2-1): Las Vegas-After last week's impressive win over the Rams, people are finally starting to believe in the Bills.  The Raiders have gained their share of believers, too.  So, I'm actually really looking forward to this game (and only partially because I want to see the beautiful Allegiant Stadium).  Trips to Oakland were always difficult for AFC East teams.  Will trips to Las Vegas be any different?  In either case, expect this one to be close.

Eagles (0-2-1) at 49ers (2-1): San Francisco-San Francisco is 2-0 at Met Life Stadium this season.  The problem for the 49ers is, of course, that they don't play any more games in New York, so they'll have to start winning somewhere else eventually.  Their first opportunity will be against an Eagles team that has been incredibly disappointing so far.  Philly at least avoided losing to Cincinnati, and that tie will take them out of all the tiebreakers, but the Eagles are off to their trademarked slow start.

Falcons (0-3) at Packers (3-0): Green Bay-For all that concern about the Packers' offense heading into the season, I think it's probably safe to stop worrying.  I'm sure somebody will slow Green bay down at some point, but it won't be this week.  The Falcons haven't stopped anybody all season, and it's not like their offense is doing the job either.  Dan Quinn's job wasn't the most secure heading into the season, and he'll really be feeling the heat after the team falls to 0-4.

*Patriots (2-1) at Chiefs (3-0): Kansas City-I'm still acting as if this one will be played on Tuesday.  The Chiefs were going to be the favorite anyway, but that's certainly the case now that New England will be without Cam.  Obviously the biggest concern here is about whether or not the game will even be played.  That uncertainty has got to be the toughest part, especially since they were preparing all week for a Sunday game and now they have no clue when it's happening.

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 10-5-1
Season: 36-12-1

2020 MLB All*Stars

As much as I'm not a fan of there being 16 playoff teams, I have to admit that yesterday was glorious.  Eight playoff games, starting at noon and ending more than 13 hours later at roughly 1:15 a.m.  There was one point in the middle of the afternoon where five separate games were going on at once (Braves-Reds, Astros-Twins, Cubs-Marlins, White Sox-A's and Rays-Blue Jays)!

Of course, the reason for the expanded playoffs was the shortened regular season.  While it's playoff time on the calendar, in terms of the actual number of games played, it's only right around Memorial Day.  And Memorial Day is usually the time we start thinking about the All*Star Game.

The All*Star Game, of course, was a casualty of 2020.  This was just the second time since the All*Star Game began in 1933 that it didn't happen.  The other was 1945, when there were World War II travel restrictions.

Obviously, it wasn't going to be possible to have an All*Star Game this season.  I know that.  The longer they went without playing, the less likely it was going to happen.  (The season didn't even start until after the All*Star Game was scheduled.)  It also would've been kind of pointless to play it without any fans in the stands, and it would've defeated the purpose of the COVID-friendly regionalized schedules.  So it made complete sense that this year's All*Star Game was cancelled.  That doesn't mean I didn't miss it!

It's even more of a bummer that there was no All*Star Game this season because it was supposed to take place at Dodger Stadium.  The Dodgers will now host in 2022, but that means we have to wait two more years for that wonderful combination of Vin Scully and the All*Star Game to make us feel great about the game again.

But, just because there was no All*Star Game, doesn't mean I can't still choose rosters for both teams.  Like I said, it's usually right around the 60-65-game mark that people really start looking at numbers and trying to determine potential All*Stars, while the actual selections are usually based on stats thru roughly 80 games.  However, since this season was only 60 games, that's our sample size.  So my All*Star teams are based on full season stats.

Same rules as the regular selections.  One starter and one backup at each position (which does include DH for the National League this year), with the five starting pitchers and three relievers that are required to be chosen.  I'm one of the few people who likes the mandatory team reps, too, so the team reps are staying!

I did do a few things differently, though.  Since there was no fan voting and it's impossible to determine who would've been chosen, I based my selections simply on numbers without worrying about who might've won the fan vote.  For that reason, I'm not naming any starters either (although with the game at Dodger Stadium, it would finally be the time for Clayton Kershaw's first All*Star start). 

Likewise, the final player on the roster is also determined by a fan vote.  MLB puts out a ballot with five names, and the fans choose one for the last spot (usually after some creative campaigning).  I didn't do that, either.  I just took that last spot and used it as a regular selection.  So, instead of five "manager selections" in each league, I have six. 

And, since this is fictitious, I didn't have to worry about injuries.  Thus, no injury replacements.  No replacements for Sunday starters or guys who simply don't feel like playing and would rather have the four days off, either.  Because, again, these teams aren't real.

So, without further ado, here they are, the 2020 Joe Brackets All*Star Teams for both the American and National Leagues.  The small sample size made it tough to choose at some positions where guys have similar numbers, where, in some cases, the fan vote would've been helpful (seriously, how do you choose who starts at first base in the AL between Luke Voit and Jose Abreu?).  Which means that there are still some "snubs" (I would've loved to include Rays reliever Nick Anderson, but I needed a Tiger, so Daniel Norris got that spot).

With all that out of the way, here we go.  The players with an asterisk are the "manager selections."  And, if you want, you can consider the first player listed as the nominal "starter" at each position.

AMERICAN LEAGUE
C: Christian Vazquez (BOS), Salvador Perez (KC)
1B: Luke Voit (NYY), Jose Abreu (CWS)
2B: DJ LeMahieu (NYY), Hanser Alberto (BAL), *Brandon Lowe (TB)
SS: Tim Anderson (CWS), Xander Bogaerts (BOS)
3B: Jose Ramirez (CLE), Anthony Rendon (LAA)
OF: Mike Trout (LAA), Teoscar Hernandez (TOR), Eloy Jimenez (CWS), Whit Merrifield (KC), Randal Grichuk (TOR), Kyle Tucker (HOU), *Kyle Lewis (SEA)
DH: Nelson Cruz (MIN), Franmil Reyes (CLE)
SP: Shane Bieber (CLE), Gerrit Cole (NYY), Dallas Keuchel (CWS), Kenta Maeda (MIN), Chris Bassitt (OAK), *Hyun-Jin Ryu (TOR), *Lance Lynn (TEX), *Tyler Glasnow (TB)
RP: Brad Hand (CLE), Liam Hendriks (OAK), Alex Colome (CWS), *Daniel Norris (DET)

NATIONAL LEAGUE
C: J.T. Realmuto (PHI), Travis d'Arnaud (ATL)
1B: Freddie Freeman (ATL), Paul Goldschmidt (STL)
2B: Ketel Marte (ARZ), Donovan Solano (SF)
SS: Fernando Tatis Jr. (SD), Trea Turner (WSH), *Corey Seager (LAD)
3B: Manny Machado (SD), Brian Anderson (MIA)
OF: Mookie Betts (LAD), Charlie Blackmon (COL), Juan Soto (WSH), Wil Myers (SD), Michael Conforto (NYM), Mike Yastrezmski (SF), *Starling Marte (MIA)
DH: Marcell Ozuna (ATL), Jesse Winker (CIN)
SP: Yu Darvish (CHC), Trevor Bauer (CIN), Jacob deGrom (NYM), Max Fried (ATL), Clayton Kershaw (LAD), *Dinelson Lamet (SD), *Zach Davies (SD)
RP: Josh Hader (MIL), Kenley Jansen (LAD), Raisel Iglesias (CIN), *Jeremy Jeffress (CHC), *Richard Rodriguez (PIT)