I've said it time and again, but after today's news about TCU moving to the Big East, it's time to say it once again: they need to remove the C from BCS. The only reason all this BS with schools shifting conference has all come about is because of the BS with the C in the middle. If the greedy, money-grubbing presidents of the BCS schools would agree to a playoff and actually allow for a real national champion, you wouldn't have a Big 17, a Pac-12, or a Mountain West (which is a pretty good conference) that can't keep a member.
Of course, this all started six years ago with the ACC. The ACC decided it wanted to become a football power (how well did that work out for ya, by the way?), so it tried to destroy the Big East in the process, poaching Miami (which nobody really cared about since they should've been in the ACC anyway), Virginia Tech and Boston College (which is nowhere near any other ACC school). From there, everything snowballed and the Big East added five schools from Conference USA (Cincinnati, Louisville, DePaul, Marquette and South Florida) to maintain an 8-team football conference and create a 16-team monster in basketball. After all the dust settled, everybody was happy for a few years until the Big Ten and Pac-10 got greedy.
The Big Ten, which has been sitting with 11 since adding Penn State in 1994, wanted to even itself out (a completely reasonable desire). Notre Dame wasn't going to happen, so the Big Ten started looking around for takers. Nebraska volunteered, leaving the Big 12 for the Big Ten (although Nebraska's AD looked like a complete tool at the press conference when he said the Big Ten offered "stability" that the Big 12 didn't, even though it was Nebraska making the Big 12 unstable). Then Colorado left the Big 12 for the Pac-10. Just so everybody can keep track: next year the Big Ten will have 12 teams and the Big 12 will have 10 teams. Got it? Fortunately Texas (the only school that seems to actually thinking about its student-athletes) stopped the madness by agreeing to stay in the Big 12 rather than create a Pac-16, which settled for only adding Utah to go to 12.
The reason for all this ridiculousness is, of course, the BCS. Because only six conferences have auto-bids, and those six refuse to let the Mountain West become the seventh, all of the Mountain West schools are trying to get out and join a BCS league. (I'm not really sure what BYU's master plan was, but that's a whole other story.) Big East football sucks. Everybody knows that. So, what better way to improve Big East football and help out one of the Mountain West schools in the process? Never mind the fact that there are now 17! teams in the conference, which now extends all the way to Dallas! (They also asked Villanova to go from FCS to BCS football to get to 10.) The move actually does make sense (to an extent) and shouldn't effect Big East basketball too badly, but seriously, when will it end? The whole reason the Mountain West Conference even exists in the first place is because the WAC expanded to 16 and that was too many. I don't think that will happen here, but this definitely isn't over. It won't stop until they finally implement a playoff.
Of course, the Mountain West and the WAC are the victims here. Three schools (Utah, BYU and TCU) are leaving the Mountain West and being replaced by WAC schools Boise State, Fresno State and Nevada. The WAC is adding Denver and two Texas schools to get back to nine, but Hawaii is talking about leaving because that will increase their travel even more. The Big 12 survived annihilation, but again, for how long? You know they'll want to stop confusing people and go back to 12 at some point. I figured TCU and Arkansas to the Big 12 would make sense, but it doesn't look like that's happening now. Maybe it'll be Rice and Houston now, but the Big 12 won't be a misnomer for long. Of course, the Big East is destined to become even more of a misnomer when UNLV and BYU join the league.
Monday, November 29, 2010
Sunday, November 28, 2010
The Case for Ray Guy
The Pro Football Hall of Fame unveiled its list of semifinalists today, and of the 26 guys on the list, about 20 of them deserve to be in Canton. The rules dictate that only between 4 and 7 guys can get in every year, and a maximum of five can be modern-era candidates (although not an official rule, it does seem to be some sort of requirement that both senior nominees get in, even though 99.6 percent of football fans have never heard of them). Because the Football Hall of Fame also feels the need to induct at least one offensive lineman every year (I'm not really sure why), that leaves four spots for everybody else. Take out the first-year guys who are locks to make it (this year that's Deion Sanders and Marshall Faulk) and there aren't really many spots left. With all that being said, it's once again time for me to make the case for somebody who I know won't get in: Ray Guy.
Punter is a position. In the modern game, it's a very important one. Yet, there are no punters in the Hall of Fame. In fact, the only specialist in the Hall of Fame at all is former Chiefs/Saints kicker Jan Stenerud. Why? I understand that these guys are in for about 15 plays a game max, but how important can those 15 plays be? How many games are won on last-second field goals? That's an argument for another day, but my point remains: Ray Guy should be in the Hall of Fame.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the committee should suddenly start looking at punters the same way they do skill position guys and defensive players, but Ray Guy is NOT your average punter. Ask anybody who knows a thing about the game (or has watched it in the last 30 years), and they'll all agree: Ray Guy is the best punter in history.
A quick look at the resume:
Punter is a position. In the modern game, it's a very important one. Yet, there are no punters in the Hall of Fame. In fact, the only specialist in the Hall of Fame at all is former Chiefs/Saints kicker Jan Stenerud. Why? I understand that these guys are in for about 15 plays a game max, but how important can those 15 plays be? How many games are won on last-second field goals? That's an argument for another day, but my point remains: Ray Guy should be in the Hall of Fame.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm not saying that the committee should suddenly start looking at punters the same way they do skill position guys and defensive players, but Ray Guy is NOT your average punter. Ask anybody who knows a thing about the game (or has watched it in the last 30 years), and they'll all agree: Ray Guy is the best punter in history.
A quick look at the resume:
- drafted in the 1st round in 1973 (still the only punter ever taken in the 1st round)
- won three Super Bowls with the Raiders (XI, XV, XVIII)
- named to the NFL's 75th Anniversary All-Time Team and All-Decade Team for the 70s
- seven-time Pro Bowler (1973-78, 1980)
- selected First Team All-Pro every year from 1973-78, then Second Team All-Pro in 1979-80
- played in 207 consecutive games
- 1,409 career punts for 44,493 yards (42.4 average)
- never had a punt returned for a touchdown
- once had a streak of 619 consecutive punts without having one blocked
- had 210 punts inside the 20 and just 128 touchbacks
- owner of every major NFL punting record
Friday, November 26, 2010
Happy Thanksgiving
Happy Thanksgiving everybody. As I sit here trying to digest all of yesterday's food and am subjected to nonstop college football by my dad (just can't get excited about it or into it, sorry!), I decided the perfect way to subside some of my boredom would be to write a blog. I don't really have anything specific I want to talk about, and I'm not going to make one of those stupid "Things I'm Thankful For" lists; I just need something to do.
This seems as good a time as any to make some random observations and the first is a question: If Alabama's nickname is the "Crimson" Tide, how come the shade of red they wear is more of a scarlet? (Only bringing this up because my dad is currently watching Auburn-Alabama.) And while I'm on the subject of uniforms, why did only three of the six teams wear throwback jerseys yesterday? Granted, the Saints have had pretty much the same uniforms during their entire existence, so they get a little bit of a mulligan, but what about the other two? I was all ready for the 80s-era Jets with the green helmets (although knowing them, they would've gone with the Titans uniforms they insist on wearing as their throwbacks for some reason) and the pre-tiger stripes Bengals with "BENGALS" written on those otherwise blank orange helmets. But instead, I got nothing. (It also kind of bothered me that the Patriots wore red and the Lions wore blue, but seeing as everything that New England does is annoying you can just add that to the list.)
Anyway, I digress. The craziness that is this NFL season is about to enter the stretch run with a bunch of random good teams. If the playoffs started today, Jacksonville would win the AFC South and the Colts wouldn't make it. Of course, no one expects this to still be the case at the end of the season, but how did Jacksonville suddenly get good? The one thing that is almost certain, though, is that the Colts will be stuck playing on Wild Card Weekend, where they'll have to play either the Jets/Patriots or Steelers/Ravens. And while everyone gushes about how amazing Pretty Boy Brady and his stupid little team are, need I remind you that they're technically in second place right now because they lost to the Jets in Week 2. Yes, the Jets have gotten lucky a number of times, but they're still both 9-2. Of course, that'll change next week when they play in one of the better Monday Night matchups of the season.
Over in the NFC, who knows what's going on? All we know is that somebody in the ridiculously crappy NFC West is going to end up hosting a playoff game at 8-8, while somebody's going to finish 10-6 and not get in. As it stands, seven teams (the Eagles, Giants, Packers, Bears, Falcons, Saints and Bucs) are fighting for five spots. Tampa's got the least staying power of the group, so let's just eliminate them now for the sake of argument. This weekend will help actually clear this thing up a little bit, as FOX has a sweet doubleheader. First, the two best teams (the Falcons and Packers) play at 1 in Atlanta in what should be the Sunday night game (not that I'm complaining about getting to see Peyton), then the Eagles play the Bears in the late game. And over on CBS, the Giants need a win against the Jaguars, who I don't consider a first-place team. Seeing as New Orleans already won this week, and the Bucs are in Baltimore, which you can just chalk up as a loss, there are going to be either three or four teams in the NFC at 8-3 or better (Atlanta will be 9-2 with a win), with the Eagles-Bears loser, Bucs, possibly Giants and possibly Packers all at 7-4.
If the Packers, Bears and Giants all win, all three divisions will be tied. Meanwhile, if the Chiefs beat the Seahawks, everybody in the NFC West will be below .500. Yet one of those teams gets to host a playoff game. I think the best-case scenario for the Giants will be finishing tied with the Bears, who they beat in Week 4. With three division games left, both with the Redskins and the home game against the Eagles, who knows how the NFC East will shake out? The Giants will probably need to win all three and have Philly lose to Dallas at least once (the Eagles and Cowboys haven't played yet either) to win the division, though. My prediciton is that Chicago will join Tampa Bay on the sidelines in January, while the Saints go to Seattle and the Giants and Eagles play for the third time this season. And people really need to start talking about Atlanta, who might be the best team in the NFC.
That's it today. I'll continue enjoying my little mini-vacation from working while pretty much the entire rest of the athletic department staff is in Florida with the men's basketball team. But I'm pissed off that I can't watch the Grey Cup this year. The game's on NFL Network, which Cablevision doesn't get. Since my original prediciton was way off, I'm going to take Saskatchewan to get revenge for last season's last-second loss and knock off Montreal for the title.
This seems as good a time as any to make some random observations and the first is a question: If Alabama's nickname is the "Crimson" Tide, how come the shade of red they wear is more of a scarlet? (Only bringing this up because my dad is currently watching Auburn-Alabama.) And while I'm on the subject of uniforms, why did only three of the six teams wear throwback jerseys yesterday? Granted, the Saints have had pretty much the same uniforms during their entire existence, so they get a little bit of a mulligan, but what about the other two? I was all ready for the 80s-era Jets with the green helmets (although knowing them, they would've gone with the Titans uniforms they insist on wearing as their throwbacks for some reason) and the pre-tiger stripes Bengals with "BENGALS" written on those otherwise blank orange helmets. But instead, I got nothing. (It also kind of bothered me that the Patriots wore red and the Lions wore blue, but seeing as everything that New England does is annoying you can just add that to the list.)
Anyway, I digress. The craziness that is this NFL season is about to enter the stretch run with a bunch of random good teams. If the playoffs started today, Jacksonville would win the AFC South and the Colts wouldn't make it. Of course, no one expects this to still be the case at the end of the season, but how did Jacksonville suddenly get good? The one thing that is almost certain, though, is that the Colts will be stuck playing on Wild Card Weekend, where they'll have to play either the Jets/Patriots or Steelers/Ravens. And while everyone gushes about how amazing Pretty Boy Brady and his stupid little team are, need I remind you that they're technically in second place right now because they lost to the Jets in Week 2. Yes, the Jets have gotten lucky a number of times, but they're still both 9-2. Of course, that'll change next week when they play in one of the better Monday Night matchups of the season.
Over in the NFC, who knows what's going on? All we know is that somebody in the ridiculously crappy NFC West is going to end up hosting a playoff game at 8-8, while somebody's going to finish 10-6 and not get in. As it stands, seven teams (the Eagles, Giants, Packers, Bears, Falcons, Saints and Bucs) are fighting for five spots. Tampa's got the least staying power of the group, so let's just eliminate them now for the sake of argument. This weekend will help actually clear this thing up a little bit, as FOX has a sweet doubleheader. First, the two best teams (the Falcons and Packers) play at 1 in Atlanta in what should be the Sunday night game (not that I'm complaining about getting to see Peyton), then the Eagles play the Bears in the late game. And over on CBS, the Giants need a win against the Jaguars, who I don't consider a first-place team. Seeing as New Orleans already won this week, and the Bucs are in Baltimore, which you can just chalk up as a loss, there are going to be either three or four teams in the NFC at 8-3 or better (Atlanta will be 9-2 with a win), with the Eagles-Bears loser, Bucs, possibly Giants and possibly Packers all at 7-4.
If the Packers, Bears and Giants all win, all three divisions will be tied. Meanwhile, if the Chiefs beat the Seahawks, everybody in the NFC West will be below .500. Yet one of those teams gets to host a playoff game. I think the best-case scenario for the Giants will be finishing tied with the Bears, who they beat in Week 4. With three division games left, both with the Redskins and the home game against the Eagles, who knows how the NFC East will shake out? The Giants will probably need to win all three and have Philly lose to Dallas at least once (the Eagles and Cowboys haven't played yet either) to win the division, though. My prediciton is that Chicago will join Tampa Bay on the sidelines in January, while the Saints go to Seattle and the Giants and Eagles play for the third time this season. And people really need to start talking about Atlanta, who might be the best team in the NFC.
That's it today. I'll continue enjoying my little mini-vacation from working while pretty much the entire rest of the athletic department staff is in Florida with the men's basketball team. But I'm pissed off that I can't watch the Grey Cup this year. The game's on NFL Network, which Cablevision doesn't get. Since my original prediciton was way off, I'm going to take Saskatchewan to get revenge for last season's last-second loss and knock off Montreal for the title.
Monday, November 22, 2010
Let the AL MVP Debate Begin
It's now time for the final MLB award, and it's the one that has been the topic of the greatest debate: AL MVP. Now, I realize that Josh Hamilton is probably going to win. That doesn't mean I have to like it. Just like I don't have to like it that Felix Hernandez won more Cy Young votes than he did games. Hamilton didn't play at all in the most important month of the season. I don't care what you're numbers are the rest of the year, if you miss September, you're not an MVP in my book. Especially when the guys you're in competition with played the entire season. They were contributing for their teams during the most important month of the season while you were sitting on your ass doing nothing.
The "best" argument that I've heard for Hamilton is: "His numbers are just so sick." So what? Now, .359, 32 homers and 100 RBIs in five months are solid numbers. But, as I said yesterday, it's Most Valuable Player, not Best Player and the thesis of my argument remains: he didn't play at all in September. Granted, the Rangers didn't really need him, seeing as they pretty much wrapped up the AL West in June, but they also did just fine without him in September. And the people who use the argument that Joe Mauer won while missing a month last year are full of crap. Mauer missed April. Anyone who knows a thing about baseball will tell you that missing April and missing September are nowhere near the same thing. Nobody's in a pennant race in April. Now, I'm not saying he should be penalized because the Rangers weren't in a pennant race and wanted their best player to be healthy in the playoffs, but the fact that he put up his numbers in five months shouldn't be held against the guys who played all six either.
Now, you're probably expecting me to say that my vote would go to Robinson Cano. I don't hide my favoritism, nor do I hide the fact that I'm more familiar with Cano than any of the other candidates. I actually saw some moron on an MLB.com message board say that Cano's only in the discussion because he's a Yankee. This guy clearly knows his baseball! People who actually do know something about the sport are all in agreement that Cano is a top 3 MVP candidate. He hit .319 with 29 homers and 109 RBIs while playing Gold Glove defense at second base. Obviously the New York writers can't campaign for him, but even the voters in the 13 other cities can't ignore the fact that this guy moved from the bottom of the lineup into the five-hole and turned into an MVP candidate. And he carried the Yankees offense while A-Rod was on the DL. Yankees offense or not, he was one of only two guys in the AL with 200 hits, and the other one was Ichiro, who's superhuman and doesn't count.
But, my vote actually wouldn't go to Robinson Cano either. I know that last statement probably shocks most of you, so I'll say it again. My choice for AL MVP is NOT Robinson Cano. It's Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers. Cabrera was a one-man team for a majority of the season, but still ended up hitting .328 with 38 homers and a league-leading 126 RBIs. He also slugged .622, scored 111 runs and led the AL in on-base percentage (.420). And since there was absolutely nobody around him in the lineup, he drew a Barry Bonds-like 32 intentional walks. When Bonds was a one-man team with the Giants, he was the NL MVP every year. I don't know how this is any different. The argument against Cabrera is that the Tigers finished below .500. True, but how bad would they have been without him? It's not his fault they sucked.
Some of you are probably shouting at your computer screens right now because you think I'm contradicting myself and saying that my argument for Miguel Cabrera is the same one I used against Felix Hernandez, but the difference is that Cabrera's an everyday player and Hernandez isn't. It's apples and oranges. That's why there's an award just for pitchers (although I do think pitchers often get a raw deal when it comes to MVP voting). Teams that went against the Tigers had to find a way to stop Miguel Cabrera every single day, and he still managed to drive in 126 runs while playing for a team that had absolutely no offense other than him after Magglio Ordonez got hurt. (They had Johnny Damon batting third for crying out loud!) Add in the 111 that he scored and Cabrera was responsible for nearly a quarter of the Tigers' offense. He's probably not going to win because of the Tigers' record, but I don't have an actual vote anyway, so I can vote for who I want.
Jose Bautista's 54 homers can't be ignored. Neither can Paul Konerko's .312-39-111 line. But this is a three-man race. My 10-man ballot looks as such: 1. Cabrera; 2. Cano; 3. Hamilton; 4. Bautista; 5. Konerko; 6. Adrian Beltre, Red Sox; 7. Felix Hernandez, Mariners (I know, I know, write a comment and call me a hypocrite if you want); 8. Joe Mauer, Twins; 9. Evan Longoria, Rays; 10. Jim Thome, Twins.
And before I go a turn this back into a blog about all things sports, I've gotta wish a Happy 1st Anniversary to the Darcys and Happy Birthday to Drew Kingsley! Thanks for reading guys. Now, let the debating begin.
The "best" argument that I've heard for Hamilton is: "His numbers are just so sick." So what? Now, .359, 32 homers and 100 RBIs in five months are solid numbers. But, as I said yesterday, it's Most Valuable Player, not Best Player and the thesis of my argument remains: he didn't play at all in September. Granted, the Rangers didn't really need him, seeing as they pretty much wrapped up the AL West in June, but they also did just fine without him in September. And the people who use the argument that Joe Mauer won while missing a month last year are full of crap. Mauer missed April. Anyone who knows a thing about baseball will tell you that missing April and missing September are nowhere near the same thing. Nobody's in a pennant race in April. Now, I'm not saying he should be penalized because the Rangers weren't in a pennant race and wanted their best player to be healthy in the playoffs, but the fact that he put up his numbers in five months shouldn't be held against the guys who played all six either.
Now, you're probably expecting me to say that my vote would go to Robinson Cano. I don't hide my favoritism, nor do I hide the fact that I'm more familiar with Cano than any of the other candidates. I actually saw some moron on an MLB.com message board say that Cano's only in the discussion because he's a Yankee. This guy clearly knows his baseball! People who actually do know something about the sport are all in agreement that Cano is a top 3 MVP candidate. He hit .319 with 29 homers and 109 RBIs while playing Gold Glove defense at second base. Obviously the New York writers can't campaign for him, but even the voters in the 13 other cities can't ignore the fact that this guy moved from the bottom of the lineup into the five-hole and turned into an MVP candidate. And he carried the Yankees offense while A-Rod was on the DL. Yankees offense or not, he was one of only two guys in the AL with 200 hits, and the other one was Ichiro, who's superhuman and doesn't count.
But, my vote actually wouldn't go to Robinson Cano either. I know that last statement probably shocks most of you, so I'll say it again. My choice for AL MVP is NOT Robinson Cano. It's Miguel Cabrera of the Tigers. Cabrera was a one-man team for a majority of the season, but still ended up hitting .328 with 38 homers and a league-leading 126 RBIs. He also slugged .622, scored 111 runs and led the AL in on-base percentage (.420). And since there was absolutely nobody around him in the lineup, he drew a Barry Bonds-like 32 intentional walks. When Bonds was a one-man team with the Giants, he was the NL MVP every year. I don't know how this is any different. The argument against Cabrera is that the Tigers finished below .500. True, but how bad would they have been without him? It's not his fault they sucked.
Some of you are probably shouting at your computer screens right now because you think I'm contradicting myself and saying that my argument for Miguel Cabrera is the same one I used against Felix Hernandez, but the difference is that Cabrera's an everyday player and Hernandez isn't. It's apples and oranges. That's why there's an award just for pitchers (although I do think pitchers often get a raw deal when it comes to MVP voting). Teams that went against the Tigers had to find a way to stop Miguel Cabrera every single day, and he still managed to drive in 126 runs while playing for a team that had absolutely no offense other than him after Magglio Ordonez got hurt. (They had Johnny Damon batting third for crying out loud!) Add in the 111 that he scored and Cabrera was responsible for nearly a quarter of the Tigers' offense. He's probably not going to win because of the Tigers' record, but I don't have an actual vote anyway, so I can vote for who I want.
Jose Bautista's 54 homers can't be ignored. Neither can Paul Konerko's .312-39-111 line. But this is a three-man race. My 10-man ballot looks as such: 1. Cabrera; 2. Cano; 3. Hamilton; 4. Bautista; 5. Konerko; 6. Adrian Beltre, Red Sox; 7. Felix Hernandez, Mariners (I know, I know, write a comment and call me a hypocrite if you want); 8. Joe Mauer, Twins; 9. Evan Longoria, Rays; 10. Jim Thome, Twins.
And before I go a turn this back into a blog about all things sports, I've gotta wish a Happy 1st Anniversary to the Darcys and Happy Birthday to Drew Kingsley! Thanks for reading guys. Now, let the debating begin.
Sunday, November 21, 2010
Votto Did a Lotto Stuff to Win NL MVP
OK, you know I'm not happy about how the AL Cy Young vote went. Rather than dwelling on it, I'll just ask this question: If King Felix had been 12-13 and not 13-12, would his name have even been in the discussion? My point exactly. Anyway, now we move on to the NL MVP, which is cleary defined as Most Valuable Player, not Best Player (evidently that clarification also needs to be made with the Cy Young Award). That distinction makes it pretty certain that the MVP usually goes to the right guy, although it might not in the AL this season (more on that tomorrow). The best example I can remember with this is 1998, where Mr. 70 Mark McGwire was the National League's best player, but Sammy Sosa was rightfully named MVP after leading the Cubs to the playoffs.
With that being said, I think the NL MVP debate should be a short one. Albert Pujols was Albert Pujols again this year. He's cleary the best player in the National League, if not all of baseball. Now don't get me wrong, I love Albert Pujols. I give him a significant number of all-star votes every year. But simply being Albert Pujols doesn't mean he should just automatically be handed the MVP award every year. This year is one of those years. Without Joey Votto, the Cincinnati Reds don't win the NL Central. That's why our Canadian friend is the 2010 National League MVP.
Now on paper, you could make the argument that Albert's numbers were better than Votto's. Pujols finished 1st, 2nd or 3rd in six different offensive categories, leading the league in homers (42), RBIs (118) and runs (115). However, he was only sixth in hitting at .312. Votto, on the other hand, was only top three in five categories, although he was fourth in runs and sixth in hits. Votto led the National League in on-base percentage (.424) and slugging percentage (.600) (that obviously means he also led the NL in OPS, but since that's a stupid, insignificant fantasy stat, it doesn't count). Pujols topped him in both homers and RBIs (37 and 113, both third), but his average was significantly higher (.324, second in the NL). None of that really matters, though. Votto's the MVP because he was the heart and soul of a Reds team that no one expected to contend, let alone win 90 games and make the playoffs for the first time in 15 years. And the Reds are in the same division as the Cardinals, who had won the Central in each of the last two years. That can't be overlooked, either. Without Votto leading the way in Cincinnati, St. Louis probably wins that division yet again.
The only other guy even worth talking about is "CarGo," Rockies center fielder Carlos Gonzalez. Some experts will try to argue that the Rockies have two MVP candidates (Troy Tulowitzki being the other), but they barely have one. I'm just including CarGo to be nice (and for the sake of talking about more than just two guys). Gonzalez does have good enough numbers to legitimately put him into the discussion (league-leading .336 average and 197 hits, second with 117 RBIs and a .598 slugging percentage, not to mention 34 doubles, plus that crazy hitting streak), but he's going to finish third. Now, he is the best defensively of the three, and his second half was just ridiculous, but overall his numbers just don't measure up. The Rockies were kept in the race longer than they should've, mainly because of CarGo. He deserves consideration, but I'd be incredibly surprised if he gets a first-place vote (although, two guys did vote for Gaby Sanchez for Rookie of the Year over Posey and Heyward, so you never know).
So, there's the top three. Voters get 10 votes, so a lot of guys are going to be named on the ballot. If I had a vote, this is what mine would look like: 1. Votto, 2. Pujols, 3. Gonzalez, 4. Roy Halladay (I don't get why pitchers are never really considered for MVP), 5. Troy Tulowitzki, 6. Hanley Ramirez, 7. Ryan Howard, 8. Adrian Gonzalez, 9. Brian McCann, 10. Brandon Phillips. Your vote probably looks different, which is the whole point of putting 10 guys on the ballot in the first place. Until tomorrow, when I know they'll be some debate about the American League MVP (I'll give you a hint, my vote isn't for Josh Hamilton).
With that being said, I think the NL MVP debate should be a short one. Albert Pujols was Albert Pujols again this year. He's cleary the best player in the National League, if not all of baseball. Now don't get me wrong, I love Albert Pujols. I give him a significant number of all-star votes every year. But simply being Albert Pujols doesn't mean he should just automatically be handed the MVP award every year. This year is one of those years. Without Joey Votto, the Cincinnati Reds don't win the NL Central. That's why our Canadian friend is the 2010 National League MVP.
Now on paper, you could make the argument that Albert's numbers were better than Votto's. Pujols finished 1st, 2nd or 3rd in six different offensive categories, leading the league in homers (42), RBIs (118) and runs (115). However, he was only sixth in hitting at .312. Votto, on the other hand, was only top three in five categories, although he was fourth in runs and sixth in hits. Votto led the National League in on-base percentage (.424) and slugging percentage (.600) (that obviously means he also led the NL in OPS, but since that's a stupid, insignificant fantasy stat, it doesn't count). Pujols topped him in both homers and RBIs (37 and 113, both third), but his average was significantly higher (.324, second in the NL). None of that really matters, though. Votto's the MVP because he was the heart and soul of a Reds team that no one expected to contend, let alone win 90 games and make the playoffs for the first time in 15 years. And the Reds are in the same division as the Cardinals, who had won the Central in each of the last two years. That can't be overlooked, either. Without Votto leading the way in Cincinnati, St. Louis probably wins that division yet again.
The only other guy even worth talking about is "CarGo," Rockies center fielder Carlos Gonzalez. Some experts will try to argue that the Rockies have two MVP candidates (Troy Tulowitzki being the other), but they barely have one. I'm just including CarGo to be nice (and for the sake of talking about more than just two guys). Gonzalez does have good enough numbers to legitimately put him into the discussion (league-leading .336 average and 197 hits, second with 117 RBIs and a .598 slugging percentage, not to mention 34 doubles, plus that crazy hitting streak), but he's going to finish third. Now, he is the best defensively of the three, and his second half was just ridiculous, but overall his numbers just don't measure up. The Rockies were kept in the race longer than they should've, mainly because of CarGo. He deserves consideration, but I'd be incredibly surprised if he gets a first-place vote (although, two guys did vote for Gaby Sanchez for Rookie of the Year over Posey and Heyward, so you never know).
So, there's the top three. Voters get 10 votes, so a lot of guys are going to be named on the ballot. If I had a vote, this is what mine would look like: 1. Votto, 2. Pujols, 3. Gonzalez, 4. Roy Halladay (I don't get why pitchers are never really considered for MVP), 5. Troy Tulowitzki, 6. Hanley Ramirez, 7. Ryan Howard, 8. Adrian Gonzalez, 9. Brian McCann, 10. Brandon Phillips. Your vote probably looks different, which is the whole point of putting 10 guys on the ballot in the first place. Until tomorrow, when I know they'll be some debate about the American League MVP (I'll give you a hint, my vote isn't for Josh Hamilton).
Thursday, November 18, 2010
David Price for Cy Young
After the Jaspers' exciting win over Penn in their home opener, I knew I had to hurry home. I had a blog to write. I made my first wrong MLB award prediction when Bud Black edged Dusty Baker by a point for NL Manager of the Year, but 4 out of 5 so far ain't bad. I have a feeling that I might get tomorrow's award wrong too, though. I have no idea who's going to win the AL Cy Young. But I know who shouldn't.
Felix Hernandez is a great pitcher. I'm not going to dispute that. He might've been the best pitcher in the American League this year. But being the best pitcher doesn't necessarily mean you should be the Cy Young winner. Hernandez led the AL with a 2.27 ERA and 249.2 innings pitched, while finishing second with 232 strikeouts. Impressive numbers no question. Here's where the problem comes in, he had only 13 wins. Now I saw how awesome King Felix is after seeing him beat the Yankees three times (including two shutouts), but the fact remains--he won only 13 games (and lost 12 by the way). Is it his fault the Mariners didn't score any runs? Of course not. And yes, he was the only pitcher on the team that anyone actually feared, but the number of wins can't (and shouldn't) be ignored. I don't understand all the "experts" who say they'd vote for Hernandez because wins are an "overrated" stat. Huh? Aren't wins the stat that's used to determine whether or not a team's good (and who makes the playoffs)? Some would claim that the precedent was set last year when Zack Greinke of the Royals won with just 16 wins for a last-place team, but Greinke was clearly so much better than everybody else last season that it was also clear he should win. That's not the case this year. Yes Felix Hernandez put up crazy numbers, but he pitched for the worst team in the American League. The other two guys in the discussion both pitched for playoff teams in arguably the best division in baseball. It's not their fault that Seattle sucks, and it shouldn't be held against them.
Now, as a Yankees fan, you probably all expect me to say that I think CC Sabathia should win. CC was the only 20-game winner in the American League, going 21-7. And every time the Yankees needed a victory, he pitched like the ace he is. The only reliable pitcher on the staff in the second half, CC almost single-handedly helped the Yankees make the playoffs. I know he plays for the Yankees and got crazy run support, but his ERA in his 21 wins was 1.77. He only gave up more than three runs in a win once, compared to 11 wins where he allowed one run or fewer. Yes he had 21 wins pitching for the New York Yankees, but the New York Yankees play 18 games a year against Tampa Bay, Boston and Toronto. Seattle plays 18 games a year against Oakland, Texas and the Angels. The AL East is a better division than the AL West, and CC was pitching pressure-packed games in a pennant race that wasn't decided until the final day of the season. Advantage, Sabathia.
But my vote actually wouldn't go to CC. It would go to David Price. Price started the All-Star Game, which is basically the unofficial half-year Cy Young. In just his second full Major League season, this guy showed why he was the No. 1 pick in the 2008 Draft. Price set a Rays record with 19 wins and had the best winning percentage in the AL (.760). All that's nice, but here's why he should win: Price went 4-0 with a 1.64 ERA in September, as the Rays held off the Yankees for both the AL East and the best record in the American League. He also went 12-5 against teams that finished above .500. Price was the best pitcher on the best team, playing in the best division.
Again, Felix Hernandez couldn't do anything about his run support, just like CC Sabathia couldn't do anything about his, but the quality (not quantity) of the wins for the AL East guys can't be overlooked. I think that's the big thing in the whole debate. Yes Sabathia and Price had more wins, but they pitched in big games all season. Did Hernandez pitch in any big games at all? Sabathia and Price were the aces of teams that made the playoffs and pitched like it. Both were at their best against the best teams, and the other top pitchers (remember that 1-0 game they pitched against each other at the Trop in September?). Would either the Yankees or Rays have made the playoffs without them? No. Where would Seattle have been without Felix Hernandez? Last place. Where were they with him? Oh yeah, last place.
Two pitchers in a pennant race in the best division in baseball trump a really good pitcher on a really crappy team. My vote would be 1. Price, 2. Sabathia, 3. Hernandez, 4. Jon Lester, 5. Clay Buchholz. I really hope I'm right.
Felix Hernandez is a great pitcher. I'm not going to dispute that. He might've been the best pitcher in the American League this year. But being the best pitcher doesn't necessarily mean you should be the Cy Young winner. Hernandez led the AL with a 2.27 ERA and 249.2 innings pitched, while finishing second with 232 strikeouts. Impressive numbers no question. Here's where the problem comes in, he had only 13 wins. Now I saw how awesome King Felix is after seeing him beat the Yankees three times (including two shutouts), but the fact remains--he won only 13 games (and lost 12 by the way). Is it his fault the Mariners didn't score any runs? Of course not. And yes, he was the only pitcher on the team that anyone actually feared, but the number of wins can't (and shouldn't) be ignored. I don't understand all the "experts" who say they'd vote for Hernandez because wins are an "overrated" stat. Huh? Aren't wins the stat that's used to determine whether or not a team's good (and who makes the playoffs)? Some would claim that the precedent was set last year when Zack Greinke of the Royals won with just 16 wins for a last-place team, but Greinke was clearly so much better than everybody else last season that it was also clear he should win. That's not the case this year. Yes Felix Hernandez put up crazy numbers, but he pitched for the worst team in the American League. The other two guys in the discussion both pitched for playoff teams in arguably the best division in baseball. It's not their fault that Seattle sucks, and it shouldn't be held against them.
Now, as a Yankees fan, you probably all expect me to say that I think CC Sabathia should win. CC was the only 20-game winner in the American League, going 21-7. And every time the Yankees needed a victory, he pitched like the ace he is. The only reliable pitcher on the staff in the second half, CC almost single-handedly helped the Yankees make the playoffs. I know he plays for the Yankees and got crazy run support, but his ERA in his 21 wins was 1.77. He only gave up more than three runs in a win once, compared to 11 wins where he allowed one run or fewer. Yes he had 21 wins pitching for the New York Yankees, but the New York Yankees play 18 games a year against Tampa Bay, Boston and Toronto. Seattle plays 18 games a year against Oakland, Texas and the Angels. The AL East is a better division than the AL West, and CC was pitching pressure-packed games in a pennant race that wasn't decided until the final day of the season. Advantage, Sabathia.
But my vote actually wouldn't go to CC. It would go to David Price. Price started the All-Star Game, which is basically the unofficial half-year Cy Young. In just his second full Major League season, this guy showed why he was the No. 1 pick in the 2008 Draft. Price set a Rays record with 19 wins and had the best winning percentage in the AL (.760). All that's nice, but here's why he should win: Price went 4-0 with a 1.64 ERA in September, as the Rays held off the Yankees for both the AL East and the best record in the American League. He also went 12-5 against teams that finished above .500. Price was the best pitcher on the best team, playing in the best division.
Again, Felix Hernandez couldn't do anything about his run support, just like CC Sabathia couldn't do anything about his, but the quality (not quantity) of the wins for the AL East guys can't be overlooked. I think that's the big thing in the whole debate. Yes Sabathia and Price had more wins, but they pitched in big games all season. Did Hernandez pitch in any big games at all? Sabathia and Price were the aces of teams that made the playoffs and pitched like it. Both were at their best against the best teams, and the other top pitchers (remember that 1-0 game they pitched against each other at the Trop in September?). Would either the Yankees or Rays have made the playoffs without them? No. Where would Seattle have been without Felix Hernandez? Last place. Where were they with him? Oh yeah, last place.
Two pitchers in a pennant race in the best division in baseball trump a really good pitcher on a really crappy team. My vote would be 1. Price, 2. Sabathia, 3. Hernandez, 4. Jon Lester, 5. Clay Buchholz. I really hope I'm right.
Wednesday, November 17, 2010
Time for the Managers
After the first three MLB awards went as expected, we now have the AL and NL Managers of the Year, which will both be handed out on Wednesday. Not only do we get one race for Manager of the Year, we get two. In the AL, it's between the pair of Rons who manage the former Washington Senators--Minnesota's Ron Gardenhire and Ron Washington of Texas. Tim McCarver said that he thinks Boston's Terry Francona should receive consideration, but we all know Tim McCarver's an idiot. When a manager's team is supposed to be good, then finishes third (injuries or not), he NOT the Manager of the Year! The NL race is even tighter, as Cincinnati's Dusty Baker, Bruce Bochy of the Giants, Bud Black of the Padres and good ol' Bobby Cox are all in the mix.
American League
Ron No. 1 is Ron Gardenhire of the Twins. He's been a good manager for years, but this year was definitely his best managing job. Gardy was Minnesota's third base coach under the great Tom Kelly, then took over as manager when Kelly retired after the 2001 season. The Twins are 803-656 since he took over, finished below .500 just once in nine seasons, won the AL Central six times (losing in the Division Series five times, four of those to the Yankees), and finished second after Game 163 in 2008. He's finished second in Manager of the Year voting five times, but never won. Here's why he should this year: The Twins finished with the second-best record in the American League (94-68), despite losing their second-best player (Justin Morneau) for the season after he got a concussion in Toronto in early July. Instead of going away (like most people expected), Minnesota only got better, battling the Rays and Yankees for the best record in the AL until the wire. The Twins lost their closer, Joe Nathan, for the year in Spring Training, then lost Morneau, but still had Joe Mauer and gave Jim Thome the same magic elixir that the Vikings gave to Brett Favre last year. But, they also didn't have a pitching staff, which is really the most amazing thing about Gardy's managing job.
Ron No. 2 is Ron Washington of the Rangers. His year started with an admission of cocaine use, but he got a vote of confidence (from both the owners and players), then led Texas to the best season in franchise history. The Rangers pretty much dominated the AL West from May on, winning 90 games. He became just the second manager in franchise history to lead them to the playoffs, then won a postseason series for the first time in franchise history (then did it again to reach the World Series). Of course, all that postseason stuff doesn't count, but Ron Washington's a great manager. 2008 winner Joe Maddon also deserves a look for leading Tampa Bay to the best record in the American League and winning a division that included the Yankees and Red Sox. With that being said, however, my vote goes to the Ron in Minnesota.
National League
As much as I love Bobby Cox, and as incredible as the Braves' season was (especially when their entire starting lineup got hurt, but they still rallied to win the Wild Card), he's won the award four times and frankly didn't do the best managing job in the National League this year. Charlie Manuel's Phillies have taken over as the team that wins the NL East every year (four years in a row now), and Philadelphia finished with the best record in baseball (97-65), but, again, he wasn't the National League's best manager in 2010.
The way I see it, Dusty Baker and Bud Black are the two guys in contention. Bruce Bochy of the Giants probably isn't going to get that much consideration, but I'm not really sure why. San Francisco wasn't supposed to be good and had absolutely no hitting when the season started. Then Buster Posey got called up and Bengie Molina got traded, setting the wheels in motion for a surprise NL West title and World Series championship. Of course, I do see the point that Cincinnati's and San Diego's success was a little more unexpected, but Bochy deserves some love.
Dusty Baker has already been the NL Manager of the Year three times, but this year he could (and probably should) win his fourth. He took the Reds from fourth place last season to 91 wins and the NL Central title this year. It was Cincinnati's first playoff berth in 15 years, and the Reds are the third different team Baker has taken to the postseason. They led the National League in batting average, but, seriously, can you name anybody on the Reds other than Joey Votto? Didn't think so. Granted, the NL Central is the division that features the Pirates, Cubs and Astros, but it also includes the Cardinals. What Dusty Baker did with that team this year can't be overlooked.
Nor can the job Bud Black did with the Padres. If you can't name anybody on the Reds other than Joey Votto, you really can't name anybody on the Padres other than Adrian Gonzalez (I know they added a bunch of old guys like Miguel Tejada and Ryan Ludwick at the trade deadline, but the point is better made if you just forget about that). But somehow, San Diego, a team that can't hit at all, managed to lead the NL West for most of the season. The Padres were supposed to finish last (even below the Diamondbacks), but won 90 games. However, they faded down the stretch and were caught by the Giants on the last day. That might be Black's undoing. If the Padres had held on to win that very good division, I think he'd be the guy, but their fade, coupled with Cincinnati's surprising run gives the advantage to Baker.
Tomorrow we've got AL Cy Young, and the debate over that one should be fun.
American League
Ron No. 1 is Ron Gardenhire of the Twins. He's been a good manager for years, but this year was definitely his best managing job. Gardy was Minnesota's third base coach under the great Tom Kelly, then took over as manager when Kelly retired after the 2001 season. The Twins are 803-656 since he took over, finished below .500 just once in nine seasons, won the AL Central six times (losing in the Division Series five times, four of those to the Yankees), and finished second after Game 163 in 2008. He's finished second in Manager of the Year voting five times, but never won. Here's why he should this year: The Twins finished with the second-best record in the American League (94-68), despite losing their second-best player (Justin Morneau) for the season after he got a concussion in Toronto in early July. Instead of going away (like most people expected), Minnesota only got better, battling the Rays and Yankees for the best record in the AL until the wire. The Twins lost their closer, Joe Nathan, for the year in Spring Training, then lost Morneau, but still had Joe Mauer and gave Jim Thome the same magic elixir that the Vikings gave to Brett Favre last year. But, they also didn't have a pitching staff, which is really the most amazing thing about Gardy's managing job.
Ron No. 2 is Ron Washington of the Rangers. His year started with an admission of cocaine use, but he got a vote of confidence (from both the owners and players), then led Texas to the best season in franchise history. The Rangers pretty much dominated the AL West from May on, winning 90 games. He became just the second manager in franchise history to lead them to the playoffs, then won a postseason series for the first time in franchise history (then did it again to reach the World Series). Of course, all that postseason stuff doesn't count, but Ron Washington's a great manager. 2008 winner Joe Maddon also deserves a look for leading Tampa Bay to the best record in the American League and winning a division that included the Yankees and Red Sox. With that being said, however, my vote goes to the Ron in Minnesota.
National League
As much as I love Bobby Cox, and as incredible as the Braves' season was (especially when their entire starting lineup got hurt, but they still rallied to win the Wild Card), he's won the award four times and frankly didn't do the best managing job in the National League this year. Charlie Manuel's Phillies have taken over as the team that wins the NL East every year (four years in a row now), and Philadelphia finished with the best record in baseball (97-65), but, again, he wasn't the National League's best manager in 2010.
The way I see it, Dusty Baker and Bud Black are the two guys in contention. Bruce Bochy of the Giants probably isn't going to get that much consideration, but I'm not really sure why. San Francisco wasn't supposed to be good and had absolutely no hitting when the season started. Then Buster Posey got called up and Bengie Molina got traded, setting the wheels in motion for a surprise NL West title and World Series championship. Of course, I do see the point that Cincinnati's and San Diego's success was a little more unexpected, but Bochy deserves some love.
Dusty Baker has already been the NL Manager of the Year three times, but this year he could (and probably should) win his fourth. He took the Reds from fourth place last season to 91 wins and the NL Central title this year. It was Cincinnati's first playoff berth in 15 years, and the Reds are the third different team Baker has taken to the postseason. They led the National League in batting average, but, seriously, can you name anybody on the Reds other than Joey Votto? Didn't think so. Granted, the NL Central is the division that features the Pirates, Cubs and Astros, but it also includes the Cardinals. What Dusty Baker did with that team this year can't be overlooked.
Nor can the job Bud Black did with the Padres. If you can't name anybody on the Reds other than Joey Votto, you really can't name anybody on the Padres other than Adrian Gonzalez (I know they added a bunch of old guys like Miguel Tejada and Ryan Ludwick at the trade deadline, but the point is better made if you just forget about that). But somehow, San Diego, a team that can't hit at all, managed to lead the NL West for most of the season. The Padres were supposed to finish last (even below the Diamondbacks), but won 90 games. However, they faded down the stretch and were caught by the Giants on the last day. That might be Black's undoing. If the Padres had held on to win that very good division, I think he'd be the guy, but their fade, coupled with Cincinnati's surprising run gives the advantage to Baker.
Tomorrow we've got AL Cy Young, and the debate over that one should be fun.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)