Stop me if you've heard this before. The Cavs and Warriors are playing each other in the NBA Finals...for the fourth straight year! Yet the NBA and ESPN (which is basically to the NBA what Fox News is to the Trump Administration) want people to believe this is a good thing. The reality is that this once again proves that the idea of parity in the NBA is an absolute joke...a joke that stopped being funny a while ago.
I always say, but more in a joking manner, that it's an NBA rule LeBron James must be in the Finals. But I'm becoming less and less convinced that it isn't actually a rule. Especially with the way everything seems preordained for the Cavs-Warriors Finals. They were both on the road for Game 7 of the conference finals. Didn't matter. They still got every call. Yet you have people acting all surprised that they both won and saying that this is "another example of their greatness."
(Disclaimer: I haven't voluntarily watched an NBA game in years, and on Monday night, I was watching the hockey game. My take is based on the opinions expressed by others, so take it for what you will.)
Since this Cavs-Warriors monopoly started, seven different teams have played in the Stanley Cup Final, seven have played in the World Series, and six have made the Super Bowl. The NFL and Major League Baseball have both had four different champions, and the NHL will have its third this season.
So, even though it seems like the Patriots are in the Super Bowl every year, their NFC opponent at least changes. That's not remotely close to the case in the NBA. Ever since they let LeBron make his own team in Miami, the Eastern Conference has been his exclusive domain. Can anyone even remember the last time another East team was allowed to be in the Finals, and what team it was? I actually had to look it up to find out it was the Celtics in 2010.
It's not a good thing that 14 of the 15 teams in one conference know going into the season that the absolute best they can hope for is losing to Cleveland in the Conference Finals. It's even worse when 14 of the 15 teams in the other conference feel the same way. I don't care how you try to spin it. You shouldn't go into the season with 93 percent of the league thinking they have absolutely no chance (even if they're a "good" team)!
They might as well not even bother with the charade of 82 games and six weeks of playoffs just to inevitably get right back to the same place. And, for all the whining these guys do about travel and "needing rest," I'm sure the Cavs and Warriors wouldn't mind skipping right to the Finals.
LeBron James is the greatest player of his generation, and I'm not trying to start or get into a LeBron vs. Jordan debate. (It doesn't matter, and you're never going to convince somebody on the other side of the argument.) Likewise, Steph Curry is a future Hall of Famer. But the NBA and its PR people at ESPN aren't doing themselves any favors by forcing that same matchup down our throats over and over and over again. And the fact that they refuse to see that only exacerbates the problem.
This is a problem, it should be pointed out, of the NBA's own making. Ever since that ridiculous "Decision" TV special when LeBron announced that he was "taking his talents to Miami," we've known that the players run the league. They let LeBron make his own team in Miami and were unable to prevent the already-loaded Warriors from adding Kevin Durant. This in a league with a salary cap, mind you!
Instead of taking measures to make sure the league remains competitive, the exact opposite has happened. And this is the result. The rich get richer and, even the "good" teams are unable to keep up. As much as I despise the tactic, can you really blame the 76ers for tanking a couple years ago? If you aren't gonna have a chance even if you do try, why bother?
NBA fans are going to watch the NBA no matter what. But they've done a terrible job of trying to draw in others. The "casual fan" tuned out long ago. Why? Because it's become boring and predictable. Ho-hum. Another Cavs-Warriors Finals. Big deal.
Of course, plenty of people have no issue with the NBA or their annual Cavs-Warriors Finals. And I'm sure the league and ABC will be happy with the TV ratings, especially in Cleveland and the Bay Area. To those of you who'll be watching, I hope you enjoy. And, who knows? Maybe the games will actually be competitive. After all, the professional wrestling portion of the season is over. Now they can throw out the script.
Thursday, May 31, 2018
Monday, May 28, 2018
A Stanley Cup KnightCap
As the NBA rolls towards yet another Cavs-Warriors finals (raise your hand if you're shocked by that) and I engage in a lively Facebook debate about the stupidity of having Game 7 and Game 1 on the same night for no reason, we prepare for some new blood to battle it out for the Stanley Cup. Somebody's name is being engraved on the Cup for the first time, as Washington and Vegas square off in a Final series nobody saw coming (at the start of the playoffs, let alone the start of the season).
Neither one of these teams has won a Stanley Cup Final game, let alone a series. The Capitals were swept by the Red Wings 21 years ago in their only previous trip, and we all know about all the history the Golden Knights have been rewriting during their remarkable inaugural season. Vegas is just the second team in NHL history to play for the Cup in its first year of existence. Although, that comes with a big asterisk because the 1968 Blues went as an expansion team in the year the NHL doubled in size from six teams to 12 and put all of the expansion clubs in the same conference, guaranteeing one had to make the Final. What Vegas has done is truly unprecedented.
Speaking of the Golden Knights, am I the only one who feels a certain poetic justice in the fact that Marc-Andre Fleury is back in the Final while the Penguins are not? He was skating around the ice with the Cup after Game 6 in Nashville last season knowing his time in Pittsburgh was done, and knowing that he was headed to Las Vegas. Well, that sure worked out for him, didn't it? I highly doubt he expected to be back this year, though.
Fleury has absolutely been the difference for Vegas in the playoffs thus far. The Knights have leaned on him not just for his incredible play, but because he was really the only one on the team with any playoff experience. That's especially true now. This is uncharted territory for pretty much everyone else (on both teams). Fleury's been here four times and won three Cups. That alone could prove to be huge.
Meanwhile, the Capitals have got to be thinking, "How do we get away from this guy!?" They finally got by the Penguins, only to have to deal with Fleury in the Final. The pressure's also squarely on the Capitals. Ovechkin finally has his chance to play for the Cup. They don't know when or if he'll get another one. Vegas has been playing with house money all season. What have they got to lose? Washington played free and loose against Tampa. But now the focus shifts back to Ovechkin and his Stanley Cup opportunity.
One thing the Capitals have going for them, though, is how well they've played on the road this postseason. They're 8-2 on the road and clinched all three series away from DC. They obviously need at least one road win if they want to hoist the Cup, but the Knights are 6-1 at home in Vegas, so something's gotta give.
Let's not forget this fact, either. The Capitals trailed in all three series. They were down 0-2 against Columbus and won four straight. They lost Game 1 against Pittsburgh and won four of the next five. They trailed Tampa Bay 3-2, then Braden Holtby stopped allowing goals entirely and they posted shutouts in Games 6 and 7 to advance to the Final. So, even if they get down, Washington has shown an ability to come back. As a result, don't expect Vegas to steamroll the way they did in the first three rounds.
The Knights obviously have the rest factor squarely on their side. In baseball, you sometimes wonder if a team has had too much rest if there's a long gap between series in the postseason. Well, Vegas has had a long break between every series, and it hasn't made a bit of difference. Although, with the exception of the three games in Winnipeg, they've spent pretty much the entire postseason in the Pacific time zone. We'll see if the increased travel and playing on the East Coast has any sort of an impact.
Both goalies have obviously been outstanding. But it seems unlikely both of these high-powered offenses will be held in check for the duration of a seven-game series. Ovechkin and Marchessault are the marquee offensive guys, but they're both deep and full of scorers. That's why I think getting an early lead is going to be important. Because they've both got the firepower to add on. Likewise, they've both got the ability to come back, so the early lead will give them the chance to dictate the pace.
Ultimately, though, in a series where a grand total of three guys (two of whom played for Pittsburgh) have Final experience, that's the ultimate wild card. Fleury being one of those guys gives Vegas a slight edge. He's the most important player in this series. Because as good as the Golden Knights have been, they wouldn't be here if not for their goaltender. Does he have four more wins in him?
I have a feeling that Alex Ovechkin is going to do something special, too. It's much more difficult for a skater to will his team to win than a goalie, but Ovechkin is going to do everything he can to do just that. This is his time to shine. He knows there's that one gaping hole in his resume, and this is his chance to do something about it.
You can really make a pretty good argument either way. This Capitals team really isn't much different than the one that won back-to-back President's Trophies. Now they've finally converted that regular season success into a long postseason run. And it definitely seems like they have more left in them.
But it also feels like the Golden Knights' incredible story has one last chapter to be written. Everything they've done this season has defied logic. Why not defy logic some more? All of the pieces have fallen into place for Vegas so far. It sounded crazy at the beginning of the season, and it still sounds crazy now for a different reason, but I'm picking the Vegas Golden Knights to win the Stanley Cup in six games. It seems like it's the only way for the most remarkable inaugural season for any expansion team ever to end.
Neither one of these teams has won a Stanley Cup Final game, let alone a series. The Capitals were swept by the Red Wings 21 years ago in their only previous trip, and we all know about all the history the Golden Knights have been rewriting during their remarkable inaugural season. Vegas is just the second team in NHL history to play for the Cup in its first year of existence. Although, that comes with a big asterisk because the 1968 Blues went as an expansion team in the year the NHL doubled in size from six teams to 12 and put all of the expansion clubs in the same conference, guaranteeing one had to make the Final. What Vegas has done is truly unprecedented.
Speaking of the Golden Knights, am I the only one who feels a certain poetic justice in the fact that Marc-Andre Fleury is back in the Final while the Penguins are not? He was skating around the ice with the Cup after Game 6 in Nashville last season knowing his time in Pittsburgh was done, and knowing that he was headed to Las Vegas. Well, that sure worked out for him, didn't it? I highly doubt he expected to be back this year, though.
Fleury has absolutely been the difference for Vegas in the playoffs thus far. The Knights have leaned on him not just for his incredible play, but because he was really the only one on the team with any playoff experience. That's especially true now. This is uncharted territory for pretty much everyone else (on both teams). Fleury's been here four times and won three Cups. That alone could prove to be huge.
Meanwhile, the Capitals have got to be thinking, "How do we get away from this guy!?" They finally got by the Penguins, only to have to deal with Fleury in the Final. The pressure's also squarely on the Capitals. Ovechkin finally has his chance to play for the Cup. They don't know when or if he'll get another one. Vegas has been playing with house money all season. What have they got to lose? Washington played free and loose against Tampa. But now the focus shifts back to Ovechkin and his Stanley Cup opportunity.
One thing the Capitals have going for them, though, is how well they've played on the road this postseason. They're 8-2 on the road and clinched all three series away from DC. They obviously need at least one road win if they want to hoist the Cup, but the Knights are 6-1 at home in Vegas, so something's gotta give.
Let's not forget this fact, either. The Capitals trailed in all three series. They were down 0-2 against Columbus and won four straight. They lost Game 1 against Pittsburgh and won four of the next five. They trailed Tampa Bay 3-2, then Braden Holtby stopped allowing goals entirely and they posted shutouts in Games 6 and 7 to advance to the Final. So, even if they get down, Washington has shown an ability to come back. As a result, don't expect Vegas to steamroll the way they did in the first three rounds.
The Knights obviously have the rest factor squarely on their side. In baseball, you sometimes wonder if a team has had too much rest if there's a long gap between series in the postseason. Well, Vegas has had a long break between every series, and it hasn't made a bit of difference. Although, with the exception of the three games in Winnipeg, they've spent pretty much the entire postseason in the Pacific time zone. We'll see if the increased travel and playing on the East Coast has any sort of an impact.
Both goalies have obviously been outstanding. But it seems unlikely both of these high-powered offenses will be held in check for the duration of a seven-game series. Ovechkin and Marchessault are the marquee offensive guys, but they're both deep and full of scorers. That's why I think getting an early lead is going to be important. Because they've both got the firepower to add on. Likewise, they've both got the ability to come back, so the early lead will give them the chance to dictate the pace.
Ultimately, though, in a series where a grand total of three guys (two of whom played for Pittsburgh) have Final experience, that's the ultimate wild card. Fleury being one of those guys gives Vegas a slight edge. He's the most important player in this series. Because as good as the Golden Knights have been, they wouldn't be here if not for their goaltender. Does he have four more wins in him?
I have a feeling that Alex Ovechkin is going to do something special, too. It's much more difficult for a skater to will his team to win than a goalie, but Ovechkin is going to do everything he can to do just that. This is his time to shine. He knows there's that one gaping hole in his resume, and this is his chance to do something about it.
You can really make a pretty good argument either way. This Capitals team really isn't much different than the one that won back-to-back President's Trophies. Now they've finally converted that regular season success into a long postseason run. And it definitely seems like they have more left in them.
But it also feels like the Golden Knights' incredible story has one last chapter to be written. Everything they've done this season has defied logic. Why not defy logic some more? All of the pieces have fallen into place for Vegas so far. It sounded crazy at the beginning of the season, and it still sounds crazy now for a different reason, but I'm picking the Vegas Golden Knights to win the Stanley Cup in six games. It seems like it's the only way for the most remarkable inaugural season for any expansion team ever to end.
Sunday, May 27, 2018
500 Miles Around the Brickyard
During Indy 500 qualifying last week, the announcers brought up a very interesting point. There were 35 cars entered, so two were going to be eliminated on Bump Day...and one of those drivers who got bumped was James Hinchcliffe. Hinch is one of the more popular and more marketable drivers on the IndyCar circuit, so it's certainly disappointing that he didn't make the field. Especially since he's currently fifth in the point standings, you just expected he'd be in the field.
Most IndyCar races feature only 24 drivers, yet there are 33 in the Indy 500. As a result (and because of the race's prestige), there are a number of owners that enter a car only for the Indy 500 and drivers that don't race full-time are hired just to race at Indy. Some of these owners simply don't have the finances to field a team fill-time, while some drivers are semi-retired and only want to run the one race at Indy (or a handful of races).
The argument that they were making, which makes a lot of sense, is that a full-time driver like Hinchcliffe shouldn't have to worry about getting bumped out of Indy while drivers with part-time rides are in the race instead. They suggested maybe using a system similar to what they use in NASCAR, where a certain number of drivers are automatically qualified based on the point standings.
It's not a terrible idea. This would give protection to the top drivers, who would still need to participate in qualifying, but would be guaranteed a spot in the race. And you're not locking in every spot, so the part-time drivers can still battle it out for the remaining places (20 drivers have participated in every race this season, so we'll use that as the benchmark and say they'd be fighting for 13 spots).
Of course, Bump Day only matters if there are enough cars entered (over the past few years, they had trouble just getting to 33), and it's one of the cooler qualifying events in sports. Indy's done it this way for many, many years, so don't expect them to be changing it simply because one guy didn't qualify. But I don't think guaranteeing the full-time drivers a spot in the field would take anything away from Bump Day, either.
That's a discussion for another day, though. As for the 33 drivers in the race itself, the story's really about two. Danica Patrick returns to Indy for the first time in seven years. It's also her farewell to the sport, as it's her final race before retiring. The other driver to watch is three-time champion Helio Castroneves. Helio posted the fastest time on the first day of qualifying, as he once again goes after his record-tying fourth victory. He came close last year, finishing second to Takuma Sato.
As fate would have it, Danica and Helio are starting right next to each other seventh and eighth on the grid. Indy native Ed Carpenter is on the pole for the third time (after starting second last year), while current series leader Josef Newgarden is on the inside of Row 2. Alex Rossi, the 2016 winner, has been installed as the favorite, even though he'll be starting 32nd in the 33-car field. Coincidentally, starting 33rd is Conor Daly, Rossi's teammate on the most recent season of The Amazing Race.
I think the action is going to come from the front, though. There's too much talent stacked in the first four rows, and I think that's where we'll find our winner.
Helio has looked great the whole time, and I think Newgarden's gonna do something special, too. Meanwhile, Tony Kanaan, my favorite driver, always has a good run at the Brickyard. He's the fastest car outside the Fast Nine, and he's in a really good spot on the inside of Row 4. If Kanaan is running at the end, he'll be a factor. Then there's Scott Dixon, who had a nasty crash after starting on the pole last year.
My pick, though, is a guy who's been one of the most consistent drivers on the IndyCar Series over the past several years, but has never put it together at the Brickyard. But...he won the Indy Grand Prix (held on the Indy road course) two weeks ago and will be starting on the outside of Row 1. Every time he's started in the front row, he's placed in the top 10. His best result at Indy was second in 2015. Three years later, I expect Will Power to do one better. I'm going with the Aussie to be sipping the milk in Victory Lane as the winner of the 102nd Indianapolis 500-Mile Race.
Also, it's worth noting that after 54 years, this is ABC's last hurrah at Indy. NBC bought the rights to the entire IndyCar Series, including the Indy 500, starting next year. It'll be weird for sure (kinda like how weird it was when NBC lost the rights to Wimbledon), and hopefully they give ABC a great race to finish off with. They deserve it.
Most IndyCar races feature only 24 drivers, yet there are 33 in the Indy 500. As a result (and because of the race's prestige), there are a number of owners that enter a car only for the Indy 500 and drivers that don't race full-time are hired just to race at Indy. Some of these owners simply don't have the finances to field a team fill-time, while some drivers are semi-retired and only want to run the one race at Indy (or a handful of races).
The argument that they were making, which makes a lot of sense, is that a full-time driver like Hinchcliffe shouldn't have to worry about getting bumped out of Indy while drivers with part-time rides are in the race instead. They suggested maybe using a system similar to what they use in NASCAR, where a certain number of drivers are automatically qualified based on the point standings.
It's not a terrible idea. This would give protection to the top drivers, who would still need to participate in qualifying, but would be guaranteed a spot in the race. And you're not locking in every spot, so the part-time drivers can still battle it out for the remaining places (20 drivers have participated in every race this season, so we'll use that as the benchmark and say they'd be fighting for 13 spots).
Of course, Bump Day only matters if there are enough cars entered (over the past few years, they had trouble just getting to 33), and it's one of the cooler qualifying events in sports. Indy's done it this way for many, many years, so don't expect them to be changing it simply because one guy didn't qualify. But I don't think guaranteeing the full-time drivers a spot in the field would take anything away from Bump Day, either.
That's a discussion for another day, though. As for the 33 drivers in the race itself, the story's really about two. Danica Patrick returns to Indy for the first time in seven years. It's also her farewell to the sport, as it's her final race before retiring. The other driver to watch is three-time champion Helio Castroneves. Helio posted the fastest time on the first day of qualifying, as he once again goes after his record-tying fourth victory. He came close last year, finishing second to Takuma Sato.
As fate would have it, Danica and Helio are starting right next to each other seventh and eighth on the grid. Indy native Ed Carpenter is on the pole for the third time (after starting second last year), while current series leader Josef Newgarden is on the inside of Row 2. Alex Rossi, the 2016 winner, has been installed as the favorite, even though he'll be starting 32nd in the 33-car field. Coincidentally, starting 33rd is Conor Daly, Rossi's teammate on the most recent season of The Amazing Race.
I think the action is going to come from the front, though. There's too much talent stacked in the first four rows, and I think that's where we'll find our winner.
Helio has looked great the whole time, and I think Newgarden's gonna do something special, too. Meanwhile, Tony Kanaan, my favorite driver, always has a good run at the Brickyard. He's the fastest car outside the Fast Nine, and he's in a really good spot on the inside of Row 4. If Kanaan is running at the end, he'll be a factor. Then there's Scott Dixon, who had a nasty crash after starting on the pole last year.
My pick, though, is a guy who's been one of the most consistent drivers on the IndyCar Series over the past several years, but has never put it together at the Brickyard. But...he won the Indy Grand Prix (held on the Indy road course) two weeks ago and will be starting on the outside of Row 1. Every time he's started in the front row, he's placed in the top 10. His best result at Indy was second in 2015. Three years later, I expect Will Power to do one better. I'm going with the Aussie to be sipping the milk in Victory Lane as the winner of the 102nd Indianapolis 500-Mile Race.
Also, it's worth noting that after 54 years, this is ABC's last hurrah at Indy. NBC bought the rights to the entire IndyCar Series, including the Indy 500, starting next year. It'll be weird for sure (kinda like how weird it was when NBC lost the rights to Wimbledon), and hopefully they give ABC a great race to finish off with. They deserve it.
Saturday, May 26, 2018
Roland Garros 2018
At first glance, this year's French Open draws look really strange. Rafael Nadal is the No. 1 seed on the men's side, which isn't that odd, but beyond that, these draws don't come anywhere near what you'd expect to see.
Novak Djokovic and Stan Wawrinka, who've both missed significant time over the past year due to injury, are seeded 20th and 23rd. Last year, Djokovic was No. 2 and Wawrinka was No. 3. In fact, Djokovic is seeded lower than second at Roland Garros for the first time since 2010 (when he was seeded third). Meanwhile, Roger Federer's sitting out the French Open for the third straight year and Andy Murray is still injured. As a result, the top seeds behind Nadal are No. 2 Alexander Zverev, No. 3 Marin Cilic and No. 4 Grigor Dimitrov. Like I said, it's weird.
The big story on the women's side is Serena Williams making her return to Grand Slam tennis for the first time since giving birth to her daughter. Although, the fact that she wasn't given a seed was a source of discussion throughout the week. I don't see why people are trying to make a controversy out of that, though. (Even Ivanka Trump felt the need to chime in.)
She has a protected ranking, which she used to enter the tournament. But a protected ranking is only used for entry. The seeds are based on the current world rankings. And Serena's current ranking is No. 453. Is she one of the 32 best players in the world? Absolutely. But that's not the point. Tournament organizers were not required to seed her and, in fact, they followed the rules exactly as they're written (Serena wasn't seeded at either of her first two tournaments this year, either).
Some other players have advocated on her behalf and have said they'd like to see that rule changed. It seems likely that it will, but it can't be put into effect until next year at the earliest (and this will be a moot point by then). And, let's face it, the organizers were in a no-win situation. Because if they had seeded her, plenty of people would've considered it special treatment and been asking why they didn't follow the rankings like they're supposed to.
Also, let's keep in mind that Serena is just 2-2 this year. If you were to seed her, what seed would it be? Because No. 1 or 2 certainly wouldn't be warranted. So, as you can tell, I'm OK with Serena being unseeded. Some people might not like it (and some top players likely wanted her seeded just to avoid the possibility of playing her early), but I think it was the right decision.
When she's at the top of her game (which I don't think she is right now), she's capable of beating anybody on any given day. Which the other players all know and terrifies them. And if she's fit enough to win seven matches, it really doesn't matter whether she's seeded or not.
Anyway, the top women's players caught a bit of a break. Because they all avoided Serena early. Her round of 16 match could be against Maria Sharapova (talk about intrigue), then No. 3 Garbine Muguruza, who beat her in the 2016 final, awaits in the quarterfinals. So, all in all, Serena ended up with a pretty good draw for an unseeded player. And she's actually set up for a pretty good run, provided she's fit enough (since she and Venus are playing doubles, too, which will either help her regain her fitness or wear her out completely).
Muguruza is the best clay court player in the world, so I'm installing her as my favorite. I've got her losing in the final to Elina Svitolina, the No. 4 seed, though. Like Svitolina, No. 1 Simona Halep has never won a Grand Slam, and, like Svitolina, this is her best chance to break that streak. You can't say that anymore about Caroline Wozniacki, who comes in as the No. 2 seed and no longer has that hanging over her head. We thought her breakthrough would be here a year ago. Instead Jelena Ostapenko won her first career WTA title at the French Open. The tournament can't be that crazy two years in a row, right?
On the men's side, there's very little point in pretending someone other than Nadal has a chance of winning. He's lost a grand total of two French Open matches in his career and is a 10-time champion, the record for any individual at any Grand Slam. So, who are we kidding? It'll be a shock if he doesn't make it 11. There's not even a name in his draw that I'd even say is a threat to beat him.
Nadal and Juan Martin Del Potro played a great semifinal at the US Open last year, and they're in line to play another one here. Djokovic and Wawrinka are both on the bottom half of the draw, but I have the same questions about them as I do about Serena. If they're healthy and fit enough, either one could win the six matches necessary to lose to Nadal in the final.
Novak Djokovic and Stan Wawrinka, who've both missed significant time over the past year due to injury, are seeded 20th and 23rd. Last year, Djokovic was No. 2 and Wawrinka was No. 3. In fact, Djokovic is seeded lower than second at Roland Garros for the first time since 2010 (when he was seeded third). Meanwhile, Roger Federer's sitting out the French Open for the third straight year and Andy Murray is still injured. As a result, the top seeds behind Nadal are No. 2 Alexander Zverev, No. 3 Marin Cilic and No. 4 Grigor Dimitrov. Like I said, it's weird.
The big story on the women's side is Serena Williams making her return to Grand Slam tennis for the first time since giving birth to her daughter. Although, the fact that she wasn't given a seed was a source of discussion throughout the week. I don't see why people are trying to make a controversy out of that, though. (Even Ivanka Trump felt the need to chime in.)
She has a protected ranking, which she used to enter the tournament. But a protected ranking is only used for entry. The seeds are based on the current world rankings. And Serena's current ranking is No. 453. Is she one of the 32 best players in the world? Absolutely. But that's not the point. Tournament organizers were not required to seed her and, in fact, they followed the rules exactly as they're written (Serena wasn't seeded at either of her first two tournaments this year, either).
Some other players have advocated on her behalf and have said they'd like to see that rule changed. It seems likely that it will, but it can't be put into effect until next year at the earliest (and this will be a moot point by then). And, let's face it, the organizers were in a no-win situation. Because if they had seeded her, plenty of people would've considered it special treatment and been asking why they didn't follow the rankings like they're supposed to.
Also, let's keep in mind that Serena is just 2-2 this year. If you were to seed her, what seed would it be? Because No. 1 or 2 certainly wouldn't be warranted. So, as you can tell, I'm OK with Serena being unseeded. Some people might not like it (and some top players likely wanted her seeded just to avoid the possibility of playing her early), but I think it was the right decision.
When she's at the top of her game (which I don't think she is right now), she's capable of beating anybody on any given day. Which the other players all know and terrifies them. And if she's fit enough to win seven matches, it really doesn't matter whether she's seeded or not.
Anyway, the top women's players caught a bit of a break. Because they all avoided Serena early. Her round of 16 match could be against Maria Sharapova (talk about intrigue), then No. 3 Garbine Muguruza, who beat her in the 2016 final, awaits in the quarterfinals. So, all in all, Serena ended up with a pretty good draw for an unseeded player. And she's actually set up for a pretty good run, provided she's fit enough (since she and Venus are playing doubles, too, which will either help her regain her fitness or wear her out completely).
Muguruza is the best clay court player in the world, so I'm installing her as my favorite. I've got her losing in the final to Elina Svitolina, the No. 4 seed, though. Like Svitolina, No. 1 Simona Halep has never won a Grand Slam, and, like Svitolina, this is her best chance to break that streak. You can't say that anymore about Caroline Wozniacki, who comes in as the No. 2 seed and no longer has that hanging over her head. We thought her breakthrough would be here a year ago. Instead Jelena Ostapenko won her first career WTA title at the French Open. The tournament can't be that crazy two years in a row, right?
On the men's side, there's very little point in pretending someone other than Nadal has a chance of winning. He's lost a grand total of two French Open matches in his career and is a 10-time champion, the record for any individual at any Grand Slam. So, who are we kidding? It'll be a shock if he doesn't make it 11. There's not even a name in his draw that I'd even say is a threat to beat him.
Nadal and Juan Martin Del Potro played a great semifinal at the US Open last year, and they're in line to play another one here. Djokovic and Wawrinka are both on the bottom half of the draw, but I have the same questions about them as I do about Serena. If they're healthy and fit enough, either one could win the six matches necessary to lose to Nadal in the final.
Thursday, May 24, 2018
Rays' Reliever Revolution
The Tampa Bay Rays made headlines during Spring Training when they announced that they'd be going with a four-man starting rotation this season. They've since taken it to a whole different level. Last week, reliever Sergio Romo started back-to-back games. Now, in their upcoming weekend series against the Orioles, all three games will be started by relievers, with Romo pitching the first and third games.
It's unorthodox to say the least, and its sure drawn its share of reaction--both positive and negative--from around baseball. When Romo made the consecutive starts against the Angels, it actually worked. He pitched a combined 2 1/3 innings, struck out six and didn't allow a hit over the two games. But it certainly feels gimmicky, and you wonder how well it would work on a team that's actually a contender.
One of the reasons the Rays can get away with this is precisely because they don't figure into the AL East mix. If they did, they'd likely be employing a more conventional approach with their pitching staff. Likewise, if they had any worthwhile starting pitching prospects, I doubt they'd be starting relievers instead of giving these young starters a chance. The fact that neither of those things is actually the case, however, lends itself to this unconventional bullpen usage.
At the start of the season, Tampa Bay really only had three legitimate starters in Chris Archer, Blake Snell and Jake Faria. Yonny Chirinos was their fourth starter in April before he ended up on the DL, and Faria has since joined him on the DL. So, this strategy has come about more from necessity than any sort of groundbreaking sabermetric thought process (although, former Rays manager Joe Maddon is the one to thank for the abundance of shifts in the modern game).
Although, if you look at the Rays' roster, it appears that this is also by choice. They have several other pitchers who've been starters in the past (some for Tampa Bay), but they'd rather do it this way instead. Matt Andriese, for example, was in the Rays' rotation until this year, and Vidal Nuno was mostly a starter until he was converted to a full-time reliever by Seattle last season. Lefty Anthony Banda, meanwhile, got the start in his Rays debut and is essentially their long man.
They could easily stretch out Andriese and Banda if they so chose. They'd just prefer to have a nine-man bullpen. Which sounds like a great plan come playoff time, but how sustainable is it in May? If you've got a reliever starting the game, he's gonna throw a maximum of what? Three innings? So, doing that three games in a row means that the Rays will be asking the rest of the bullpen to give them a minimum of 18 innings in the series. Which also puts additional pressure on Archer and Snell to go at least six, if not seven, in the other two games.
Speaking of Chris Archer, his name is one of the first to come up whenever people start discussing players who might be moved at the trade deadline. He'd be a logical fit on a lot of contenders who need a starting pitcher (the Diamondbacks, Braves and Cardinals all immediately come to mind as fits for Archer). Say he does get traded. Would they seriously move forward with Snell as the only bona fide starter on the pitching staff?
There's obviously been some injuries, too, that have contributed to their lack of depth in the rotation. And who's to say if they continue this experiment when and if they get Faria and Nathan Eovaldi (who hasn't pitched in two years) back from the DL.
But the fact that they don't have any Major League-ready starters in their Minor League system is ridiculous. That, frankly, is why they're in this situation in the first place. You'd think a team like Rays, especially, would have an abundance of Minor League talent. Especially since their thing is loading up on low-cost prospects when they trade off key players.
Starting pitching is the thing that you can never have enough of. (Do the Astros win the World Series last year if they don't get Justin Verlander?) Which is why it boggles my mind that the Rays literally don't have enough starters to fill out even a four-man rotation. And I'm not even talking about good starters. I'm talking about serviceable starters. There seriously isn't anybody on the Tampa Bay roster who can give you five innings every fifth day?
Of course, the craziest thing of all is that despite all of this, the Rays are just three games under .500 and in third place in the AL East (although, to be fair, they're 10 games behind the Yankees and 11 behind the Red Sox). And, as long as it's working, there's no reason for them to do anything differently. As a result, we're probably going to see Tampa Bay continue this NCAA midweek, non-conference bullpen game thing for a while. At least until Faria comes back.
Is this a trend that's going to catch on, though? That seems unlikely. Starting pitchers are a valuable commodity, both in terms of salary and what they mean to the organization. With starting pitching, less is more is definitely not the best long-term approach to take.
In fact, the opposite is true. You can never have too much starting pitching. Unless you're the Rays.
It's unorthodox to say the least, and its sure drawn its share of reaction--both positive and negative--from around baseball. When Romo made the consecutive starts against the Angels, it actually worked. He pitched a combined 2 1/3 innings, struck out six and didn't allow a hit over the two games. But it certainly feels gimmicky, and you wonder how well it would work on a team that's actually a contender.
One of the reasons the Rays can get away with this is precisely because they don't figure into the AL East mix. If they did, they'd likely be employing a more conventional approach with their pitching staff. Likewise, if they had any worthwhile starting pitching prospects, I doubt they'd be starting relievers instead of giving these young starters a chance. The fact that neither of those things is actually the case, however, lends itself to this unconventional bullpen usage.
At the start of the season, Tampa Bay really only had three legitimate starters in Chris Archer, Blake Snell and Jake Faria. Yonny Chirinos was their fourth starter in April before he ended up on the DL, and Faria has since joined him on the DL. So, this strategy has come about more from necessity than any sort of groundbreaking sabermetric thought process (although, former Rays manager Joe Maddon is the one to thank for the abundance of shifts in the modern game).
Although, if you look at the Rays' roster, it appears that this is also by choice. They have several other pitchers who've been starters in the past (some for Tampa Bay), but they'd rather do it this way instead. Matt Andriese, for example, was in the Rays' rotation until this year, and Vidal Nuno was mostly a starter until he was converted to a full-time reliever by Seattle last season. Lefty Anthony Banda, meanwhile, got the start in his Rays debut and is essentially their long man.
They could easily stretch out Andriese and Banda if they so chose. They'd just prefer to have a nine-man bullpen. Which sounds like a great plan come playoff time, but how sustainable is it in May? If you've got a reliever starting the game, he's gonna throw a maximum of what? Three innings? So, doing that three games in a row means that the Rays will be asking the rest of the bullpen to give them a minimum of 18 innings in the series. Which also puts additional pressure on Archer and Snell to go at least six, if not seven, in the other two games.
Speaking of Chris Archer, his name is one of the first to come up whenever people start discussing players who might be moved at the trade deadline. He'd be a logical fit on a lot of contenders who need a starting pitcher (the Diamondbacks, Braves and Cardinals all immediately come to mind as fits for Archer). Say he does get traded. Would they seriously move forward with Snell as the only bona fide starter on the pitching staff?
There's obviously been some injuries, too, that have contributed to their lack of depth in the rotation. And who's to say if they continue this experiment when and if they get Faria and Nathan Eovaldi (who hasn't pitched in two years) back from the DL.
But the fact that they don't have any Major League-ready starters in their Minor League system is ridiculous. That, frankly, is why they're in this situation in the first place. You'd think a team like Rays, especially, would have an abundance of Minor League talent. Especially since their thing is loading up on low-cost prospects when they trade off key players.
Starting pitching is the thing that you can never have enough of. (Do the Astros win the World Series last year if they don't get Justin Verlander?) Which is why it boggles my mind that the Rays literally don't have enough starters to fill out even a four-man rotation. And I'm not even talking about good starters. I'm talking about serviceable starters. There seriously isn't anybody on the Tampa Bay roster who can give you five innings every fifth day?
Of course, the craziest thing of all is that despite all of this, the Rays are just three games under .500 and in third place in the AL East (although, to be fair, they're 10 games behind the Yankees and 11 behind the Red Sox). And, as long as it's working, there's no reason for them to do anything differently. As a result, we're probably going to see Tampa Bay continue this NCAA midweek, non-conference bullpen game thing for a while. At least until Faria comes back.
Is this a trend that's going to catch on, though? That seems unlikely. Starting pitchers are a valuable commodity, both in terms of salary and what they mean to the organization. With starting pitching, less is more is definitely not the best long-term approach to take.
In fact, the opposite is true. You can never have too much starting pitching. Unless you're the Rays.
Monday, May 21, 2018
Still Chinese Taipei
There are a number of topics I could've chosen for today's post. We've got baseball season in full swing, and we've got an expansion team headed to the Stanley Cup Final, while the U.S. got bronze at the World Hockey Championships with a team that was significantly better than the Olympic team. I haven't forgotten about the court ruling about sports wagering or the proposed NCAA basketball changes (did you see the ACC wants to expand the Tournament to 72 teams?), either.
But my topic du jour has to do with one of my specialties--the Olympics. There's been plenty of Olympic news of late (mainly Russia remaining non-compliant on the anti-doping front). The IOC also made a decision to not change something that has been a certain way for nearly 40 years. They rejected a petition to change "Chinese Taipei" to "Taiwan."
The political status of Taiwan is long and complicated, which all stems from its relationship with mainland China. The short version is that after the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the government that had been overthrown by the Communists reestablished itself on the island of Taiwan. Taiwan's official name is "Republic of China," while China is the "People's Republic of China." They're both recognized internationally as sovereign nations.
Taiwan has competed under several different names at the Olympics in its history, but has used the compromise name "Chinese Taipei" since 1984. As a part of the agreement, they can't use their national flag or anthem, either, and a special Chinese Taipei Olympic flag was created.
"Chinese Taipei" has become Taiwan's de facto name in all international sports. They were dominant in the Little League World Series for a little while...and referred to as "Chinese Taiwan." Same thing at the World Baseball Classic, and it's their FIFA name, too.
Of course, if you were to look for "Chinese Taipei" on a map, you wouldn't find it. The country technically does not exist, which was kind of the point when they came up with the compromise name. But, even though the country's official designation is "Chinese Taipei," it's still commonly referred to as "Taiwan," and the athletes are "Taiwanese."
Because of this, and for some other reasons, I've long advocated for calling it Taiwan instead. I certainly don't understand the extent of China-Taiwan relations, but it's important to note that the international community recognizes them as separate entities. Taiwan is not considered a part of China like Hong Kong or Macau are. And I think that if the government headquartered in Taipei were to officially change its country's name to "Republic of Taiwan," it likely wouldn't meet too much opposition worldwide (although China still considers Taiwan a rebel province, so I'm not sure Beijing would agree, which would likely nip the whole thing in the bud anyway).
However, at its Executive Board meeting earlier this month, the IOC refused to consider a name change from "Chinese Taipei" to "Taiwan." It wasn't officially proposed, but there had been rumblings about a referendum seeking the change. Since it didn't come from the government or the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, though, the IOC can't act on anything, a stance that they reaffirmed in a letter to the CTOC. And, even if it had, considering IOC President Thomas Bach's opposition to such a move, it likely would have been rejected.
CK Wu, the IOC member from Chinese Taipei, took the news in stride. He said that when an athlete performs well, they'll proudly say that they're from Taiwan. However, since they signed the agreement in 1981, they had to respect the terms. And, he pointed out, it's much more important for Taiwanese athletes to be able to compete than worrying about what the country is called.
He's right. It's better to have "Chinese Taipei" there, even if they can't use their flag or anthem. Although, I'd love to see them work out a new agreement that lets them be known as "Taiwan." Because that would give them much more of an identity. And it would give the Taiwanese people a much bigger sense of national pride.
It's not China. Or Chinese Taipei (which isn't even a real thing). It's Taiwan. Hopefully, one day, we'll be allowed to call them that officially at an Olympics. Just not in Tokyo.
But my topic du jour has to do with one of my specialties--the Olympics. There's been plenty of Olympic news of late (mainly Russia remaining non-compliant on the anti-doping front). The IOC also made a decision to not change something that has been a certain way for nearly 40 years. They rejected a petition to change "Chinese Taipei" to "Taiwan."
The political status of Taiwan is long and complicated, which all stems from its relationship with mainland China. The short version is that after the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the government that had been overthrown by the Communists reestablished itself on the island of Taiwan. Taiwan's official name is "Republic of China," while China is the "People's Republic of China." They're both recognized internationally as sovereign nations.
Taiwan has competed under several different names at the Olympics in its history, but has used the compromise name "Chinese Taipei" since 1984. As a part of the agreement, they can't use their national flag or anthem, either, and a special Chinese Taipei Olympic flag was created.
"Chinese Taipei" has become Taiwan's de facto name in all international sports. They were dominant in the Little League World Series for a little while...and referred to as "Chinese Taiwan." Same thing at the World Baseball Classic, and it's their FIFA name, too.
Of course, if you were to look for "Chinese Taipei" on a map, you wouldn't find it. The country technically does not exist, which was kind of the point when they came up with the compromise name. But, even though the country's official designation is "Chinese Taipei," it's still commonly referred to as "Taiwan," and the athletes are "Taiwanese."
Because of this, and for some other reasons, I've long advocated for calling it Taiwan instead. I certainly don't understand the extent of China-Taiwan relations, but it's important to note that the international community recognizes them as separate entities. Taiwan is not considered a part of China like Hong Kong or Macau are. And I think that if the government headquartered in Taipei were to officially change its country's name to "Republic of Taiwan," it likely wouldn't meet too much opposition worldwide (although China still considers Taiwan a rebel province, so I'm not sure Beijing would agree, which would likely nip the whole thing in the bud anyway).
However, at its Executive Board meeting earlier this month, the IOC refused to consider a name change from "Chinese Taipei" to "Taiwan." It wasn't officially proposed, but there had been rumblings about a referendum seeking the change. Since it didn't come from the government or the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee, though, the IOC can't act on anything, a stance that they reaffirmed in a letter to the CTOC. And, even if it had, considering IOC President Thomas Bach's opposition to such a move, it likely would have been rejected.
CK Wu, the IOC member from Chinese Taipei, took the news in stride. He said that when an athlete performs well, they'll proudly say that they're from Taiwan. However, since they signed the agreement in 1981, they had to respect the terms. And, he pointed out, it's much more important for Taiwanese athletes to be able to compete than worrying about what the country is called.
He's right. It's better to have "Chinese Taipei" there, even if they can't use their flag or anthem. Although, I'd love to see them work out a new agreement that lets them be known as "Taiwan." Because that would give them much more of an identity. And it would give the Taiwanese people a much bigger sense of national pride.
It's not China. Or Chinese Taipei (which isn't even a real thing). It's Taiwan. Hopefully, one day, we'll be allowed to call them that officially at an Olympics. Just not in Tokyo.
Friday, May 18, 2018
The Vlad Jr. Dilemma
Vladimir Guerrero may be wearing an Angels hat when his plaque is hung in Cooperstown later this summer, but he just as easily could've gone into the Hall of Fame representing the Expos. Which is one of the many reasons it was so cool when his Vlad Jr. hit a walk-off homer against the Cardinals in the Blue Jays' annual Spring Training "home" game in Montreal.
That was just the first sign that Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., has a chance to be just as big a star as his dad was. MLB.com has him as their second-ranked prospect in all of baseball, behind only the Braves' Ronald Acuna, who made his Major League debut earlier this month and likely won't be seen in a Minor League ballpark again except for a rehab assignment. Which means Vlad Jr. is now the highest-ranked prospect still in the Minors.
A lot of scouts think Vlad Jr.'s time in the Minors is limited, too. He's currently playing for Double-A New Hampshire and absolutely raking (.413, 7 HR, 41 RBI in 36 games). Clearly he seems ripe for a promotion. And there are those who'd like him to skip Triple-A altogether and make the move straight to Toronto. There's one small problem with that plan, though. His name is Josh Donaldson.
Donaldson isn't just the Face of the Franchise. He plays the same position as Guerrero. And, if you're thinking DHing one of them is an option, the Blue Jays already have a full-time DH in Kendrys Morales (who, granted, is hitting about .160). In other words, there isn't really a regular spot in the big league lineup for Vlad Jr., and he's not the type of guy you're calling up just to get him "Major League experience."
Sure, you could call him up to Triple-A, have him play shortstop in Buffalo, then promote him to the Majors later in the summer. But if the long-term plan is for him to be the Blue Jays' third baseman (Donaldson is a free agent after the season), would that serve any practical purpose? And would it actually serve to benefit him?
Keep in mind, Vlad Guerrero Jr. is only 19 years old! And he's never played above Double A! I'm not saying he isn't Big League ready, because it clearly looks like he is. But I don't think bypassing Triple A entirely and fast-tracking him right to the Majors is necessarily the right call, either.
Even if he is ready for the Majors, would playing a few months a Triple A really hurt? Probably not. And, besides, he might be tearing up Double A, but Triple A pitchers are better than Double A pitchers. Just like Major League pitchers are better than both. See how he handles the Triple A pitching first.
But, herein lies Toronto's problem. The Blue Jays see themselves as contenders this season, but they know the AL East is out of reach. Whoever doesn't win the East between the Yankees and Red Sox will end up hosting the Wild Card Game, which leaves one wild card spot up for grabs (unless the Angels run away with that). So, any roster moves they make for a playoff "run" would likely only set them up for a one-game crap shoot...on the road. Do you call Guerrero up and start his arbitration clock (another consideration) for a playoff experience that could last only one game, if it even happens at all.
If the Blue Jays want to make that push, though, they need to have their nine best hitters in the lineup night after night. And Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., is arguably one of the nine best hitters they've got. Although, again, where would they put him?
Of course, this could all end up being a non-issue anyway. Toronto is already eight games back in the AL East and 3.5 games behind the Angels for the second wild card (they also trail Seattle and Oakland). Yes, it's only mid-May. But those gaps have just as much potential of getting larger as they do of becoming more manageable.
And if they end up being sellers at the deadline, they could handle it either way. They could easily trade Donaldson, try to get something for him before he leaves as a free agent, and hand Guerrero the third base job. Or they could stand pat with the team they've got and not rush him along, knowing that they likely aren't going to make the playoffs anyway.
Either way, it does seem likely that we'll see Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., in the Major Leagues this season, either as a September call-up or earlier. My bet is on September. Once he gets to the Majors, though, it doesn't seem like he'll be going back down. In fact, I'm installing him as the early favorite for AL Rookie of the Year in 2019, when the Blue Jays' third base job will be all his.
That was just the first sign that Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., has a chance to be just as big a star as his dad was. MLB.com has him as their second-ranked prospect in all of baseball, behind only the Braves' Ronald Acuna, who made his Major League debut earlier this month and likely won't be seen in a Minor League ballpark again except for a rehab assignment. Which means Vlad Jr. is now the highest-ranked prospect still in the Minors.
A lot of scouts think Vlad Jr.'s time in the Minors is limited, too. He's currently playing for Double-A New Hampshire and absolutely raking (.413, 7 HR, 41 RBI in 36 games). Clearly he seems ripe for a promotion. And there are those who'd like him to skip Triple-A altogether and make the move straight to Toronto. There's one small problem with that plan, though. His name is Josh Donaldson.
Donaldson isn't just the Face of the Franchise. He plays the same position as Guerrero. And, if you're thinking DHing one of them is an option, the Blue Jays already have a full-time DH in Kendrys Morales (who, granted, is hitting about .160). In other words, there isn't really a regular spot in the big league lineup for Vlad Jr., and he's not the type of guy you're calling up just to get him "Major League experience."
Sure, you could call him up to Triple-A, have him play shortstop in Buffalo, then promote him to the Majors later in the summer. But if the long-term plan is for him to be the Blue Jays' third baseman (Donaldson is a free agent after the season), would that serve any practical purpose? And would it actually serve to benefit him?
Keep in mind, Vlad Guerrero Jr. is only 19 years old! And he's never played above Double A! I'm not saying he isn't Big League ready, because it clearly looks like he is. But I don't think bypassing Triple A entirely and fast-tracking him right to the Majors is necessarily the right call, either.
Even if he is ready for the Majors, would playing a few months a Triple A really hurt? Probably not. And, besides, he might be tearing up Double A, but Triple A pitchers are better than Double A pitchers. Just like Major League pitchers are better than both. See how he handles the Triple A pitching first.
But, herein lies Toronto's problem. The Blue Jays see themselves as contenders this season, but they know the AL East is out of reach. Whoever doesn't win the East between the Yankees and Red Sox will end up hosting the Wild Card Game, which leaves one wild card spot up for grabs (unless the Angels run away with that). So, any roster moves they make for a playoff "run" would likely only set them up for a one-game crap shoot...on the road. Do you call Guerrero up and start his arbitration clock (another consideration) for a playoff experience that could last only one game, if it even happens at all.
If the Blue Jays want to make that push, though, they need to have their nine best hitters in the lineup night after night. And Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., is arguably one of the nine best hitters they've got. Although, again, where would they put him?
Of course, this could all end up being a non-issue anyway. Toronto is already eight games back in the AL East and 3.5 games behind the Angels for the second wild card (they also trail Seattle and Oakland). Yes, it's only mid-May. But those gaps have just as much potential of getting larger as they do of becoming more manageable.
And if they end up being sellers at the deadline, they could handle it either way. They could easily trade Donaldson, try to get something for him before he leaves as a free agent, and hand Guerrero the third base job. Or they could stand pat with the team they've got and not rush him along, knowing that they likely aren't going to make the playoffs anyway.
Either way, it does seem likely that we'll see Vladimir Guerrero, Jr., in the Major Leagues this season, either as a September call-up or earlier. My bet is on September. Once he gets to the Majors, though, it doesn't seem like he'll be going back down. In fact, I'm installing him as the early favorite for AL Rookie of the Year in 2019, when the Blue Jays' third base job will be all his.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)