MLB's Best Pitchers, 2021

This is a very odd year when it comes to the Cy Young Awards.  Ordinarily there's one pitcher who's so dominant that he's not just a lock for the Cy Young, he gets some serious MVP consideration.  Last year, that was obviously Shane Bieber in the American League.  But there wasn't that dominant pitcher this season.  In either league.  Which means both Cy Young races are wide open!

Max Scherzer has had several of those seasons.  That's why he's won three of these things, and it would be more if not for Jacob deGrom.  He had another Max-like year in 2021, especially after he was traded to the Dodgers.  Scherzer went 7-0 with a sub-2.00 ERA in 11 starts for LA.  It's not exactly as if he was struggling in Washington before the trade, either.  Overall, Max ended up 15-4 with a 2.46 ERA and 236 strikeouts.

I'd like to say that makes Scherzer the obvious favorite, but it's really hard to put that label on any of the three finalists.  And it really speaks to the quality of pitching across the entire National League that Scherzer's Dodgers teammates Walker Buehler and Julio Urias aren't even finalists!  Urias was 20-3 with a sub-3.00 ERA for a playoff team.  In any other year, that would be a slam dunk.  Then you had Buehler going 16-4, striking out 212 and holding opponents to a .199 batting average.  Yet he, too, isn't a finalist.

Neither is Kevin Gausman of the Giants.  San Francisco took a chance on Gausman, signing him to a one-year deal.  I think it's safe to say that it worked out.  Gausman went 14-6 and finished fourth in the NL with 227 strikeouts.  More importantly, he didn't miss a start, pitching 192 innings.  Only four NL pitchers were on the mound for more innings than Gausman, including 40-year-old Adam Wainwright, who went 17-7 and threw three complete games.

An argument could also be made that maybe Josh Hader could've been a finalist.  For a closer to be in the Cy Young conversation, he has to have a downright historic year.  That's how Eric Gagne won.  Hader's 2021 wasn't anything like Gagne's 2003.  But it was still mighty impressive.  He went 34-for-35 in save opportunities and had a ridiculous 102 strikeouts in 58.2 innings.

Hader's Brewers teammate Corbin Burnes is viewed as the favorite by many, mainly on the strength of his 234 strikeouts and league-leading 2.43 ERA.  He only pitched 167 innings, though, 12 less than Scherzer and nearly 50 fewer than Zack Wheeler, who led the league with 213.3.  Wheeler also led the NL in strikeouts (247).  It's those two numbers that boosted his candidacy and pushed him to a top-three finish. 

Wheeler and Burnes are also examples of the new way of looking at starting pitchers.  Wheeler was 14-10 and Burnes, who made only 28 starts, had just 11 wins.  But, as we've seen more and more as the years have gone on, the voters don't care as much about wins anymore.  If they did, Urias would be a finalist.

Urias, of course, isn't a finalist.  And a Dodger 1-2 is also impossible.  But a Dodgers finishing No. 1 is a very realistic possibility.  I'd give Max the edge over Wheeler, with Burnes in third.  Here's how my whole ballot would look (remember, for Cy Young, they go five deep): 1. Scherzer, 2. Wheeler, 3. Burnes, 4. Urias, 5. Buehler.

Over in the American League, I have even less of an idea.  Gerrit Cole led the AL in wins, which is something I had no idea about.  Robbie Ray quietly put together a very solid season that had him as the clubhouse leader heading into September.  And Lance Lynn gave the White Sox the ace that they very much needed (even if their starting rotation is actually pretty solid).

So, which one of the three has the edge?  I honestly have no idea!  Because they all had their struggles down the stretch, which opened the door for the others.  Although, if you look at it, even though none of them stood out compared to the other two, all three stood out compared to the rest of the American League.  They were clearly the three best pitchers in the AL this season (not counting the guy who's gonna win MVP and is in a class by himself).

Although, if you look at just his pitching numbers, a case could actually be made for Ohtani to get some Cy Young support.  I'll talk plenty more about his spectacular 2021 season tomorrow, and the pitching numbers are easy to miss because of what he did with the bat.  But, don't forget, he was voted into the All-Star Game at both positions.  This was the first time he was able to do both for the entire year, and Ohtani made 23 starts on the mound.  He went 9-2, struck out 156, and led the Angels in innings pitched.

Houston's Lance McCullers had quite a season, too.  The Astros, of course, were hurting without him the World Series, which showed how important McCullers was to that team this season.  Verlander didn't pitch at all and Zack Greinke spent a good amount of time on the injured list.  Instead, it was McCullers making 28 starts, going 13-5, and striking out 185 for a Houston team that won yet another division title.

Then there are the three finalists.  I'll start with Cole, the former Astro.  Having seen most of his games, I was surprised to see his name among the finalists.  Frankly, I didn't think he was overly spectacular this season.  (But that might just be because of the contract!)  So, yes, I was surprised to see he led the AL in wins.  But, then again, he was the only starter the Yankees could consistently rely on in that Jekyll & Hyde rotation they had going on.

Lance Lynn went from that pitcher every team tried to get at the trade deadline to a genuine ace on a very strong White Sox staff.  Like Byrnes in the National League, his issue could be lack of innings.  Lynn only made 28 starts and didn't even throw enough innings to qualify for the ERA title.  Which helps explain why his record was just 11-6.  Although, he did strike out 176 and post a 2.69 ERA.

Which leaves us with Robbie Ray, who just may end up winning this thing.  Ray had a career year.  One in which he went from solid No. 2 or 3 starter to genuine No. 1 ace.  His 248 strikeouts were the most in baseball.  His 2.84 ERA was best in the American League.  He also threw a league-leading 193.1 innings.  That's what an ace does.  He takes the ball every five days and gives you six solid innings and a chance to win.  Which the Blue Jays did.  Ray was 13-7 this season.

That, for me, is the deciding factor.  Gerrit Cole did exactly what he was supposed to most of the time, but there were definitely games where he did not.  Ray didn't really have that one really bad game all season.  Which is why, amazingly enough, I give him the nod.  1. Ray, 2. Cole, 3. Lynn, 4. McCullers, 5. Ohtani.

MLB's Best Managers, 2021

I'll be honest.  I don't think Gabe Kapler is a very good manager.  He was in way over his head in Philadelphia, and I thought the Giants made a huge mistake by hiring him.  With that being said, however, he's clearly the National League Manager of the Year.  It's not even close.  In fact, it should be unanimous.

No one saw the Giants' season coming.  They set a franchise record with 107 wins.  They snapped the Dodgers' seven-year run of NL West titles.  They had the best record in baseball.  And they did it with a team that was talented, but not star-studded like their rivals.  Instead, it was platoons and using everybody on the roster.  Yes, they lost in the playoffs.  But, as they always remind us, the voting for Manager of the Year is done before the playoffs begin.

Kapler's all-but-certain victory means Craig Counsell will have to settle for another runner-up finish.  The Brewers basically did the same thing they do every year.  Milwaukee used a ton of players, yet managed to win the NL Central anyway.  Which they did by holding off a surging Cardinals team in September.

Speaking of the Cardinals, Mike Shildt is the third finalist, which is just awkward.  Fortunately, he's not gonna win.  Although, he wouldn't be the first to win Manager of the Year and get fired in the same season.  Joe Girardi also had that honor after his only year with the Marlins.  Shildt's candidacy is based primarily on that 17-game winning streak that propelled St. Louis into the Wild Card Game, keeping with the Cardinals' tradition of making the playoffs with a few stars and a bunch of younger guys you've never heard of.

Brian Snitker easily could've been the third finalist, but I guess he'll just have to settle for a World Series ring instead.  As they said repeatedly during the World Series, Atlanta wasn't over .500 for good until August and had to navigate so many injuries they had basically an entirely new team in the second half of the season.  Yet the Braves got hot at the right time, surged to an NL East title, and ultimately won the championship.

In the American League, meanwhile, there were Manager of the Year candidates abound.  Last year's winner Kevin Cash, Dusty Baker and Scott Servais are all deserving finalists.  But a case could also be made for Tony La Russa.  And Charlie Montoyo.  And Alex Cora.  Although, frankly, I'm glad Cora won't get the recognition.  Because it still doesn't sit well with me that the Red Sox immediately hired him back after his suspension ended as if nothing ever happened (when he was the ringleader of the whole thing!).

You can't overlook the job Charlie Montoyo did in Toronto (and Buffalo, and Dunedin) this season.  Playing in the toughest division in baseball, they were in the playoff hunt all season and ended up with 90 wins, which is more than the World Series champions.  They did all this while playing their home games in three different cities.  When they finally returned to Toronto in July, it was the first time since September 2019 that they actually played a game in their home city.

Then there's Tony La Russa.  People though the White Sox were crazy for bringing the 77-year-old Hall of Famer out of retirement to manage for the first time in a decade.  With a team that was supposed to be good.  Would it work?  Well, the answer to that question was a resounding "Yes!"  The White Sox weren't just as good as advertised.  They were better.

When the White Sox played the Astros in the playoffs, it was a matchup of veteran managers, proving the old guys can still hold their own in this age of young, analytically-minded managers with little to no experience.  Dusty Baker deserves a lot of credit for rebuilding Houston's reputation.  They won another AL West title and reached their fifth straight ALCS while navigating a myriad of injuries, especially to the pitching staff.  Most importantly, they did it clean.  Things were understandably hostile every time they were on the road, yet Dusty still managed to lead the Astros to 95 wins.

Kevin Cash is looking to pull off the rare feat of winning back-to-back Manager of the Year awards.  What the Rays did this season might've been more impressive than their 2020 campaign.  Because this time, they sustained it for 162 games...and won 100 of them!  In the AL East.  With basically an entirely new pitching staff than last season.  In fact, you never knew who was gonna be in Tampa Bay's lineup on a given night.  The Rays used 61 players (38 of whom were pitchers) and had 158 different lineups in 162 games.  Yet they held off three well-financed rivals for their second straight division title.

How can the AL Manager of the Year not be Seattle's Scott Servais, though?  The Mariners being competitive is one thing.  Seattle being in the mix for a playoff spot until the literal last day of the season is something else entirely.  What's more impressive is the fact that the Mariners managed to win 90 games despite having a minus-51 run differential.  They shouldn't have been good.  Yet they were.

Traditionally, the Manager of the Year ends up going to the skipper of the team that most exceeded expectations.  That's why Kapler is a lock in the National League.  If that same criterion applies in the AL, it should also be an easy choice in the Junior Circuit.  It's true that Seattle didn't make the playoffs.  But the Mariners got pretty damn close!  And no one thought they would!

So, I think my choices are pretty clear here.  Gabe Kapler in the National League and Scott Servais in the American League.  It's the down-ballot voting that'll be interesting, though.  Because the top three could easily be a top five in each league.

As for my choices, in the National League I've got: 1. Kapler, 2. Snitker, 3. Counsell.  In the American League, I initially thought I'd go completely off the board and pick La Russa, despite knowing that he obviously didn't win, but I settled on putting him at No. 2 instead.  Because Servais is a clear No. 1.  Which means my AL ballot would look like this: 1. Servais, 2. La Russa, 3. Montoyo.

MLB's Best Rookies, 2021

If you'd asked anybody after the 2020 World Series who would be the AL Rookie of the Year this season, their answer would've been unanimous.  Randy Arozarena.  Of course, that opinion was based entirely on his ridiculous 2020 postseason, which included ALCS MVP honors.  What made it even crazier was that it all happened last October and he was still considered a rookie this year.

What's even crazier than that, though, is the fact that Arozarena might not've even been the best rookie on the Rays in 2021.  That would be Wander Franco.  Tampa Bay traded Willy Adames to Milwaukee in May so that they could make room for Franco to play every day at shortstop.  That sure worked out, didn't it?  Franco could very well be the best player on the Rays, and he's just 20.

The last time two teammates were AL Rookie of the Year finalists in the same season was 2018, when Yankees Miguel Andujar (who should've won) and Gleyber Torres finished 2-3 behind some Japanese guy who plays for the Angels.  I'm not sure if there's ever been teammates who went 1-2, but we'll probably find that out tomorrow when they make the announcement.  Because it seems likely the Rays did just that.

So which Ray is the AL Rookie of the Year?  I think it's really a matter of preference.  Because the case could really be made for either one.  Arozarena was on the roster all season, played 141 games, scored 94 runs, and became just the third rookie ever to have 20 home runs and 20 stolen bases.  And he was named the team's Outstanding Rookie by the Tampa Bay chapter of the BBWAA, which may give him the slight advantage (at least at home).

Franco's 70 games were pretty incredible, though.  He hit .288 and had 30 extra-base hits.  He also had a crazy 43-game on-base streak from July 25-Sept. 29.  And, it's again worth noting, that Franco is 20 years old!  The fact that he wasn't called up until June could be the deciding factor in Arozarena's favor, but, if you extend Franco's numbers over a 162-game average, they blow Arozarena's out of the water.

Luis Garcia of the Astros is the third finalist, which is code for "third-place finisher."  Frankly, I'm not sure how he finished third (more on that in a second).  Because he wouldn't have been my choice.  I didn't know much about Garcia until the playoffs, when he had a good start and a bad start in both the ALCS and World Series.  Voting was conducted before the playoffs, though, which is why I don't quite understand how Garcia finished higher than some of the other candidates.

Baltimore's Ryan Mountcastle, for example, had 33 home runs and 89 RBIs for a team that wasn't very good.  Then there's Adolis Garcia, who hit 31 homers and had 90 RBIs for a Rangers team that was nearly as bad.  He also played solid defense at all three outfield positions.  Sure, he struck out too much, but does that disqualify him?  Certainly not!

My personal preference is Franco, but I think Arozarena is the likely winner.  The writers remembered his 2020 postseason, so he came in as the favorite, and he did nothing to knock himself below any of the other candidates.  As for my ballot, it would go: 1. Franco, 2. Arozarena, 3. Mountcastle.

Over in the National League, there was no clear-cut favorite heading into the season.  And, frankly, things seem a lot more wide open there, too.  It's down to Jonathan India of the Reds, Dylan Carlson of the Cardinals, and Trevor Rogers of the Marlins.

India's got to be considered the slight favorite.  He was Cincinnati's leadoff hitter for most of the season and led all rookies with 150 games played.  India had 21 homers and 34 doubles, scored 98 runs, stole 12 bases and got hit by a pitch a National League-high 23 times.  He also drew 71 walks and drove in 69 runs.  Pretty much all of those numbers were NL rookie highs.

Dylan Carlson, meanwhile, is the latest in a long line of random Cardinals rookies outfielders who end up having really great seasons.  Carlson played 149 games while getting starts pretty much everywhere (both in the field and in the lineup).  He ended up with 18 homers, 31 doubles, 65 RBIs and 79 runs scored, which actually ranks him behind India in all those categories.  The biggest thing working in his favor, however, is the fact that St. Louis made the playoffs while the Reds and Marlins didn't.

Speaking of the Marlins, Rogers is looking to be Miami's first Rookie of the Year since the late Jose Fernandez in 2013.  And he put together a rookie year that was nearly as impressive as Fernandez's.  He was Rookie of the Month in both April and May and made the All-Star team.  Rogers allowed three runs or less in his first 21 starts and finished with a 2.64 ERA, numbers that would be crazy for any pitcher, let alone a rookie!

While the three finalists deserve to be so, let's not forget that like Arozarena, the Braves' Ian Anderson was also still technically a rookie in 2021.  When he and Garcia started against each other in Game 3 of the World Series, it was the first time since 2006 that two rookie starting pitchers squared off in the World Series.  And, for the record, Anderson, who was brilliant in that World Series start, was 9-5 with a 3.58 ERA in 24 starts for the World Champion Braves.

Other NL Rookie of the Year honorable mentions go to Marlins second baseman Jazz Chisholm and Cubs third baseman Patrick Wisdom.  Chisholm had some ups and downs, but he finished with a very impressive 23 stolen bases in 31 attempts while also hitting 18 home runs.  Wisdom, meanwhile, made quite a splash with all his home runs.  He was one of the reasons the Cubs traded all of their stars at the deadline, and Wisdom finished with 28 bombs in 106 games.

All of them pale in comparison to the three finalists, though, and this figures to be a very competitive three-horse race.  I literally have no idea who's gonna win!  In fact, I think NL Rookie of the Year might be the closest vote of any of the eight awards that will be handed out this week.

Personally, I'm leaning towards India.  I'd be more inclined to go with Rogers if he had a winning record, but I can't overlook the fact that he was 7-8 (yes, I know, don't give me the "wins don't matter" lecture!).  So, my vote would go: 1. India, 2. Rogers, 3. Carlson.

Picking Football Games, Week 10

I made it through Week 9 unscathed in my survival league, which I think is pretty impressive considering the amount of crazy upsets there were last week.  Jaguars-Bills?  No one saw that coming!  Same with Cowboys-Broncos.  And Falcons-Saints.  Every season has a week like that, though, and I guess Week 9 was this year's.  So, of course, the Dolphins beat the Ravens on Thursday night to give me my first strike!

Thursday Night: Baltimore (Loss)

Falcons (4-4) at Cowboys (6-2): Dallas-You know the Cowboys are eager to get back on the field after last week's debacle.  They did show some life at the end (after Denver didn't care anymore), but, still.  They were down 30-0!  Was that their egg that every good team lays every season?  Probably.  There's too much talent in Dallas for them to have back-to-back bad weeks.

Saints (5-3) at Titans (7-2): New Orleans-Tennessee doesn't just have the best record in the AFC, the Titans have already played all of the good teams on their schedule and beaten all of them (yet, they also somehow lost to the Jets!?).  And they made a statement last week in LA.  The Saints, meanwhile, had an inexplicable loss to the Falcons and now don't have Alvin Kamara.  Yet, for some reason, I think New Orleans goes into Nashville and pulls the upset here.

Jaguars (2-6) at Colts (4-5): Indianapolis-Jacksonville's got to be riding high after not just upsetting the Bills, but holding that vaunted Buffalo offense to just three points.  Can they do it again against Carson Wentz and Co.?  It'll be a tall order after that absolute clinic Indy put on last week.  The Colts really can't play any better than they did in the Jet game.  Realistically, the Jaguars can't play any better than they did last week, either.  The law of averages, then, figures you play the odds and make the obvious pick here.

Browns (5-4) at Patriots (5-4): Cleveland-This game actually has huge implications in the AFC playoff race.  A lot of teams are 5-4 right now, including the Browns and Patriots.  So the winner here not only moves a game ahead of the other, they'll own the head-to-head tiebreaker.  These are the types of games that Cleveland has shown a penchant for winning over the past couple years.  These are also the types of games that you'd just take for granted New England would win.  But the current incarnation of the Patriots needs to show that they can do what the Patriots of old could.

Bills (5-3) at Jets (2-6): Buffalo-When the Bills saw Miami, at Jacksonville, at Jets coming off the bye, they figured this was the easy part of their schedule.  At least it should've been.  But that unexpected loss in Jacksonville now has the Bills suddenly just a half-game ahead of the Patriots in the AFC East.  It's possible they were looking past the Jaguars, which is a dangerous thing to do with any opponent.  They won't be looking past the Jets, whose two wins are both at home against good teams (Tennessee and Cincinnati) in their last two home games.

Lions (0-8) at Steelers (5-3): Pittsburgh-Ben Roethlisberger is on the COVID list and won't play.  Not that it should matter much for the Steelers, who are rolling and, thanks to the Ravens' loss, have a chance to move into a tie for first place.  The Lions, meanwhile, didn't lose last week!  What's crazy is I don't think Detroit is the worst team in the league.  Far from it, actually.  But, with two road games against AFC North foes coming up, they very well could be 0-10 when they play the Bears on Thanksgiving.

Buccaneers (6-2) at Washington (2-6): Tampa Bay-In hindsight, this is the game I should've used in survival this week.  The Bucs began their Super Bowl run last season with a wild card victory in Washington.  Everyone knew that Washington was totally overmatched in that game, and it'll be the same thing here.  Throw in the fact that Tampa Bay's coming off its bye and this one may not be pretty.

Panthers (4-5) at Cardinals (8-1): Arizona-After their first loss of the season dropped them out of the NFC's No. 1 seed,  the Cardinals are right back in the top spot.  That Monday night game against the Rams in a few weeks will probably determine who wins the NFC West, but they both need to take care of business first.  Carolina, meanwhile, is sitting just a half-game out of a playoff spot despite being 4-5.  And now Cam Newton is back!

Vikings (3-5) at Chargers (5-3): Chargers-Remember when everybody thought the Chargers were the best team in the AFC?  No one thinks that anymore (even though it might actually be true!).  Anyway, after their back-to-back losses, they got back into the win column last week, even if it was with an uninspiring performance in Philadelphia.  Now they're back home to face another NFC foe, a Vikings team that's played nothing but close games this season.  Unfortunately, Minnesota's come out on the short end of most of them.  That should be the case again here.

Eagles (3-6) at Broncos (5-4): Denver-Give Denver credit.  They've taken advantage of their schedule.  The Broncos have beaten the teams they should beat (with a surprise victory in Dallas thrown in) and made the AFC West a four-team race.  The Eagles are a team they should beat.  And they'd better.  Because things are about to get a lot tougher after the bye, when they play five of their last seven games within the division.

Seahawks (3-5) at Packers (7-2): Green Bay-Russell Wilson will play.  Aaron Rodgers probably will.  Which is good news for both teams.  Because we've seen how both the Seahawks and Packers play without their star quarterbacks.  Whether Rodgers is cleared or not will really be the difference here.  With him, the Packers win.  Without him, another week of Jordan Love under center isn't a fun prospect and the advantage swings over to Russ. 

Chiefs (5-4) at Raiders (5-3): Kansas City-Have the real Kansas City Chiefs finally shown up?  If so, it's about damn time!  Of course, we can only take so much away from a win over a Rodgers-less Packers team (where they only scored 13 points themselves), but it got them back over .500 and right back into the AFC West mix.  In fact, they can move ahead of the Raiders in the standings with a win in Las Vegas.

Rams (7-2) at 49ers (3-5): Rams-Old rivals meet on Monday night, with the Rams traveling up I-5 to face the 49ers.  I don't read too much into last week's game against the Titans.  LA got outplayed by another very good team.  Simple as that.  Doesn't mean there's anything "wrong" with them.  But, just to be safe, they gave Matthew Stafford another new toy to play with in the form of Odell Beckham, Jr.  Of course, do you really need Odell when Cooper Kupp is an All-World receiver right now?  I didn't think so!

This Week: 0-1
Last Week: 9-5
Overall: 94-43

Stop Whining, Scott

Scott Boras has a problem with the way baseball teams do business.  Now, everything Scott Boras says should be taken with a grain of salt since, as an agent, how much he makes is entirely dependent on how much his clients are paid, and he's lost a good amount of money over the past few years because of baseball's changing economics.  But his comments have definitely sparked some intense debate, both within the game and outside of it.

Specifically, Boras has an issue with tanking.  He claimed that less than half of MLB's 30 teams will actually be trying to win the World Series in 2022.  He's probably right about that point, which I'll get to, but he also unfairly took a shot at the World Series champion Braves, claiming their championship was nothing more than a result of that "competitive cancer," which couldn't be further from the truth.

Now, to be fair, I've never seen a trade deadline with as much movement as I saw this year.  The Cubs and Nationals traded away every player on either of their rosters that anybody has ever heard of.  But, the 2021 trade deadline was also unlike any other ever before because there were additional economic factors that came into play.  Owners made no ticket revenue in 2020 and we're staring at a lockout next month.  Who knows how long that's gonna last?  So, yes, more teams than usual felt the need to cut payroll facing an uncertain economic situation.

But to criticize the Braves for making their team better at the trade deadline is simply a low blow.  After all, the entire point of the trade deadline is for good teams to make themselves better.  And the Braves didn't just make themselves better, they turned themselves from a .500 team into World Series champions!

That seems to be the biggest issue Boras has with Atlanta.  His exact quote was: "We have seen the championship in 60 days.  (*Sidebar: In 2020, the ENTIRE SEASON was 67 days!)  The rules allow them to be a less than .500 team at Aug. 1 and add four, five players from teams that no longer wanted to compete and for very little cost change the entirety of their team and season.  And we saw this unfold to the detriment of teams that won over 100 games.  In doing this, we have now created an understanding that a fan would not know who the true team is until, frankly, the trade deadline."

My response: "So what?"  Who said baseball was supposed to be fair?  The 107-win Giants had to play the 106-win Dodgers in the Division Series, and the 106-win Dodgers didn't have home field in the NLCS.  The Braves might've had the fewest wins of any team that made the playoffs, but they were the only team to win 11 in the playoffs.  And, as a result, they're the champions.

It's also worth noting that this isn't the first time the "best" team didn't win.  And it certainly won't be the last!  Likewise, what does their record on August 1 have to do with anything?  It's your record at the end of the season that matters.  The 2019 Nationals were 19-31 after 50 games and I don't see Boras complaining about their World Series title!  Or that of the 2006 Cardinals, who won only 83 games, giving them the lowest winning percentage ever for a World Series champion.

I also don't see why August 1 is suddenly the problem.  This season, in fact, was the first one that only had one trade deadline.  Until 2019, teams could add players until September 1 as long as they cleared waivers.  So, yeah, the Braves only had the players for their championship run together for the season's final two months, but that's better than one month!

The Braves aren't the first team to win a World Series with a bunch of short-term rentals, either.  Remember when Aroldis Chapman was traded from the Yankees to the Cubs in 2016, won a World Series ring, then went right back to the Yankees as a free agent?  Does that make Chicago's only championship in the last 112 years any less legitimate?

There's another factor at play here, too.  The Braves only got an entirely new outfield at the trade deadline because they had to.  It's not like they just went out and got guys because they wanted to.  They were planning on having Ronald Acuna, Jr., and Marcell Ozuna be big parts of their team all season.  But Acuna's injury and Ozuna's off-the-field problems meant Atlanta GM Alex Anthopolous, knowing that the NL East was still winnable (another important point worth mentioning) would be busy working to improve his team.  So, yes, he took advantage of the system that currently exists.

Instead of criticizing him for it, though, Anthopolous should be praised for his shrewd moves.  Atlanta was the clear winner of the trade deadline.  The Braves don't win the World Series without Jorge Soler, Adam Duvall, Eddie Rosario or Joc Pederson.  They might not even make the playoffs.

Plenty of other teams did the exact same thing.  The Dodgers got Max Scherzer and Trea Turner.  The Red Sox got Kyle Schwarber.  The Giants got Kris Bryant.  The Rays got Nelson Cruz.  The Yankees got Anthony Rizzo and Joey Gallo.  The difference is it worked for Atlanta, while all of those others did not win the World Series.  So, again, Anthopolous deserves a lot of credit for turning his team from a .500 ballclub into World Series champions.  Because all of those other teams' GMs had the same goal, but they didn't achieve it!

Atlanta's World Series championship isn't the root of the problem, though.  It's simply the result of it.  Boras is right about tanking.  Far too many teams choose to simply not make any attempt to be competitive.  They either intentionally maintain low payrolls or, in the case of teams with pending free agents they know they won't be able to re-sign, stockpile draft picks by trading away their best players at the deadline. 

While tanking isn't a new concept, we've seen more and more teams do it in recent years.  Why?  Because it worked for the Cubs and it for the Astros.  It's easy to forget now, but Houston was terrible in the early 2010s.  The Astros lost 106, 107 and 111 games in three consecutive seasons from 2011-13.  We all know what's happened since.  They used the resulting high draft picks to build the core of the team that has played in five straight ALCS, been to three of the last five World Series, and "won" the title in 2017.  Suddenly the thinking became, "If it worked in Houston, why couldn't it work here?"

Tanking is a serious problem Major League Baseball needs to address.  A lockout seems inevitable once the current CBA expires in three weeks, and teams tanking is one of the many issues that will be dealt with during CBA negotiations that promise to be contentious.  Whether they come up with a solution or not, that's where you address it.  (Again, the solution is a salary floor.  What's so hard about that?)

Simply put, to delegitimize the Braves' championship as the product of "competitive cancer" is a very disingenuous low blow.  Everything the Braves at the trade deadline did was within the rules.  It's not their fault you don't like the rules.  Rules that may very well be changed soon, anyway.

Picking Football Games, Week 9

Now that the season is 18 weeks long, that makes Week 9 the official midway point.  And it really is crazy to think that we're halfway through the season.  It really has flown by!  And, while there isn't a definitive "best" team in the NFL, we know there are a bunch of really good teams (especially in the NFC).  We also know there are a bunch of really bad ones.  Maybe it'll become clearer during this third quarter of the season.

Thursday Night: Indianapolis (Win)

Browns (4-4) at Bengals (5-3): Cleveland-I think the Bengals fell into the classic trap last week.  They were looking ahead to this game (which is a big one for sure) and ended up losing to the Jets!  That really could come back to bite them, especially since they play in a division where all four teams are realistically thinking playoffs.  The Browns had the third wild card, then lost to the Steelers and are now in last place.  So, yeah, it's a big one for both of them.

Broncos (4-4) at Cowboys (6-1): Dallas-A lot of people are saying the Rams are the best team in football, but I think it's the Cowboys.  Dallas continues to impress me.  Last week's victory in Minnesota when they didn't have Dak Prescott reinforced that even more.  They're gonna cruise in the NFC East.  We already knew that.  In fact, they'll have it wrapped up before they even start playing their division games (four of their last five are in the division)!

Texans (1-7) at Dolphins (1-7): Miami-One of these two won't lose this week!  This is a Dolphins team that went to London and lost to the Jaguars and has looked lost most of the season.  The good news for them is that they're nowhere near the mess Houston is!  There was some speculation that Miami was interested in DeShaun Watson, which would've definitely been an interesting storyline in this game.  As it is, all the winner's gonna do is hurt their draft position, so both teams' fans might actually be rooting for a loss here.

Falcons (3-4) at Saints (5-2): New Orleans-Jamies Winston's injury was a devastating blow!  There's no other way to describe it.  Devastating for him, obviously.  But nearly as devastating for his team.  Although, that was an impressive by Trevor Semien to lead New Orleans to a victory over Tampa Bay, and if he can lead the Saints to another win, they'll be in first place because of that tiebreaker.  The schedule ahead is difficult, so they need him to do that if they have any hopes of holding off Brady and Co.

Raiders (5-2) at Giants (2-6): Las Vegas-This one's interesting.  The Giants can win, but I think the Raiders will.  Las Vegas has posted back-to-back wins after that clunker in Chicago and is coming off a much-needed bye week.  That, to me, is what will be the difference.  The Giants are coming off a short week and a tough loss.  The Raiders are rested.  Although, the last time they played at MetLife Stadium, they needed a last-second Hail Mary to beat the Jets!

Patriots (4-4) at Panthers (4-4): New England-Don't look now, but the Patriots can get back over .500 with a win here.  We took them going at least 12-4 for granted for so long that it really is hard to believe they haven't been over .500 since Week 3 last year, when they were 2-1.  Carolina, meanwhile, is currently sitting in playoff position as the seventh NFC team.  New England's playoff chances, of course, will improve greatly with a victory.

Bills (5-2) at Jaguars (1-6): Buffalo-Jacksonville's North American losing streak continues!  Of course, going from London to Seattle, even with a week off, isn't the easiest task for any team, let alone one that isn't good.  Now they get to play their first actual home game in a month, so they should at least be a little more competitive.  They won't beat the Bills, though.

Vikings (3-4) at Ravens (5-2): Baltimore-Call me crazy, but I don't think last week's loss to Dallas was actually that terrible for the Vikings.  Obviously they would've preferred to win and will probably argue that they should've, but they showed they can play with the good teams, and I think the seventh NFC playoff berth is theirs for the taking.  Of course, that might change after this brutal stretch that started with Dallas, then Baltimore this week, followed by the Chargers and Packers.

Chargers (4-3) at Eagles (3-5): Chargers-Remember when everyone was saying the Chargers were the best team in the AFC?  Where are those people now?  A lot of deficiencies were exposed by the Ravens, and New England exploited them again last week.  Fortunately, this week they get the Eagles.  That should help them get back on track.

Packers (7-1) at Chiefs (4-4): Kansas City-Whenever the NFL gets a great idea in its head, something goes wrong.  When they added the 17th game, they were all giddy about all the extra interconference matchups they were creating each season.  One of those was Rodgers vs. Mahomes.  Whoops!  I don't need to go into Aaron Rodgers and what's going on there, but, needless to say, the NFL is likely not happy with the situation.  If Rodgers was playing, I'd say there's no question the Packers are the favorites in this game.  With Jordan Love, however, I've gotta go with the Chiefs to finally get back over .500.

Cardinals (7-1) at 49ers (3-4): Arizona-Arizona's no longer undefeated, but is still technically in first place.  Now we get to see how the Cardinals rebound off a loss for the first time.  The fact that they're playing a familiar opponent--the 49ers--is probably a good thing.  Sorry, but I'm still not buying San Francisco as a "playoff contender."  I know somebody has to get the third NFC wild card and San Francisco is just a half game behind Carolina, but I just don't think the 49ers are that good.

Titans (6-2) at Rams (7-1): Rams-NBC got lucky with this one on Sunday night.  It was a safe bet that they'd both be good, but I don't think anyone was expecting the Titans to be the AFC's current No. 1 seed and Rams to be tied for the best record in football!  It's a good thing that the Titans have built that lead in the AFC South.  Because who knows what kind of a team they'll be without Derrick Henry?!  We'll find out starting this week.  Unfortunately, the Rams at SoFi isn't exactly the best team to be trying out a new offense against.

Bears (3-5) at Steelers (4-3): Pittsburgh-After that slow start, the Steelers seem to have found their groove.  They've won three in a row since that 1-3 start and have moved into a wild card spot.  More importantly, they're just a game behind the Ravens in the AFC North.  They've got a brutal stretch of Chargers, Bengals, Ravens coming up, so losing to the Bears this week and the Lions next week is not an option.  That would erase all this work Pittsburgh has done to get back in it.

This Week: 1-0
Last Week: 12-3
Overall: 86-37

So Obvious It Would Be Stupid Not To

This latest round of conference roulette that started with Texas and Oklahoma's pending move to the SEC and the Big 12's snagging BYU, Central Florida, Cincinnati and Houston as replacements has now seen the American make its move, expanding by six members--all of which were previously part of Conference USA.  Then three other Conference USA schools--Southern Miss, Marshall and Old Dominion--announced that they were joining the Sun Belt (along with James Madison from the CAA), leaving Conference USA with just five members.

Frankly, I'm not sure Conference USA survives this.  Because I can see UTEP going to the Mountain West.  It would make a lot of sense both geographically and competitively.  And I've heard rumors about Western Kentucky and the MAC, which would also be a logical and smart move for both school and conference.  Simply put, unless Conference USA can convince a bunch of WAC and/or Summit League schools to move up from FCS to FBS, it's easier to see that league dissolving than expanding.

It's not just in FBS football conferences where there are rumblings about expansion, though.  And I wouldn't be surprised to see it in basketball-centric leagues, either.  After all, the West Coast Conference needs to replace BYU with somebody who can actually be competitive with Gonzaga.  But it's the possibility of expansion in the Big East that really intrigues me.

UConn rejoining the Big East this year brought the conference to 11 members.  You'd figure it's only a matter of time before they add one more to make it an even 12.  And that 12th member seems very, very obvious.  It's been obvious ever since the original Big East split into this current version and the American.  Saint Louis University.

Saint Louis checks all the boxes for the Big East.  Located in a major city?  Check!  Play in an NBA-sized arena?  Check!  Catholic school?  Check!  Basketball-centric athletic program?  Check!

And for Saint Louis, the Big East frankly makes a lot more sense than their current conference, the Atlantic 10.  They're the westernmost school in the A-10, and their closest conference opponent--Dayton--is more than 350 miles away.  The Big East, meanwhile, has teams in Chicago, Indianapolis, Milwaukee and Omaha--all of which are closer to St. Louis than Dayton.

That's actually one of the biggest arguments working in the Billikens' favor, too.  Adding Saint Louis would allow the Big East to go to a divisional alignment that's very logical and practical: an East Division with the six original Big East schools along the I-95 corridor (UConn, Providence, St. John's, Seton Hall, Villanova, Georgetown), and a West Division with the six newer additions in the Midwest (Xavier, Butler, DePaul, Marquette, Creighton, Saint Louis).

There's even some speculation that the Big East wouldn't just stop at Saint Louis.  Dayton's the other one that gets mentioned often, and likely would've been a second addition had the Big East gone from 10 to 12 at some point.  The problem is there's really nobody else for Dayton to join the Big East with.  UMass and Temple may seem logical, but you'd have to wonder if UConn and Villanova would welcome another conference member in their home market.  VCU could be a possibility, but that's really the only other one.

Ever since its reorganization a decade ago, the Big East has been hesitant to expand for the sake of expansion.  While other conferences were expanding left and right, they stuck with the same 10 members until this year when UConn rejoined.  And had it been any school other than UConn, I'm not sure the Big East would've been willing to expand.  But now that they have, going to 12 would be only logical.

Which, again, brings us back to Saint Louis.  It really is the perfect fit, both for the school and the conference.  More importantly, it's logical.  It makes sense for the Big East to add a 12th member (which not only makes scheduling easier, but it adds more conference games for FS1 to air).  So does adding another major market, which is already within the conference's footprint.

Of course, the unique thing about the Big East is their status as a non-football conference.  All of the realignment in the other conferences is 100 percent about football.  That's not something the Big East has to worry about.  Which is why their membership was able to remain static at 10 members.  They also really like the double round robin basketball schedule, which they will continue to do even with the addition of UConn (everyone will play 20 conference games this season).  That's something they wouldn't be able to do with 12 teams.

So, even though conference realignment is going through another one of its cycles, the Big East is almost immune to all that craziness.  What the football conferences do has nothing to do with the Big East.  They're not losing members to other leagues and having to act frantically to find replacements (which they did brilliantly when they added Louisville and Cincinnati way back when).  They can and will expand when they want.  But they're also in no rush to add a 12th for the sake of having 12 instead of 11.

Likewise, this is all nothing more than speculation.  Who knows if Saint Louis would even be interested in leaving the Atlantic 10 for the Big East?  (Who am I kidding?  Of course they would be!)  They could be very content in the A-10 and pursuing the Big East may not even be on their radar, so this could all be a moot point.  (Although, I'm sure if the Big East reached out to Saint Louis, they'd listen.)

With that being said, however, I do think that the Big East will eventually add Saint Louis as its 12th member.  It might not be right away.  They may want to see how things shake out with the other conferences first.  But, when it comes time to renew the TV contract, the logical choice will be made.  Like the Big 12's recent additions, Saint Louis to the Big East makes too much sense to not happen.