It is almost painful for me to say this....kudos to the Boston Red Sox. Ugh, I suddenly feel so dirty.
I have to give credit where credit is due though. In the last week, Red Sox GM Theo Epstein made the kind of shrewd, under-the-radar moves that help teams win championships. After the hoopla and fanfare surrounding the blockbuster signings by the Yankees, the Hot Stove cooled down just a bit. People took this time to reflect on the changing landscape of the AL East with CC, AJ, and Tex all donning Pinstripes. The Rays responded by signing Pat Burrell to beef up their power from the right side of the plate, and Joe Nelson to sure up the bullpen. The Red Sox did....nothing.
Fans and sports writers alike wondered what would Boston do? What COULD Boston do in response to the moves by the Yankees? There were no blockbuster free agents left, and even if there were, how could they possibly match what the Yankees had accomplished with their big 3 acquisitions?
Then last week it was announced that the Red Sox had reached a 1 year deal with Brad Penny for $5 million. A man who only made 17 starts last year because of injuries, and compiled a 6-9 record with a 6.27 ERA. The Sox then signed Rocco Baldelli for 1 year and $500,000. Baldelli has been hampered by injuries throughout his career. Last year he was diagnosed with a mitochondrial disorder that tires his body out very quickly after physical exertion. He managed to come back for the Rays' stretch and playoff run last season. The busy Red Sox then signed 38 year old Takashi Saito for 1 year and 1.5 million. Saito was the Dodgers closer over the last couple of seasons until midway through this past season when his arm began to give him problems and he was eventually forced into a closer platoon because he couldn't handle the workload. The final move was announced yesterday when the Sox completed their 1 year, $5.5 million deal with lifelong Atlanta Brave John Smoltz, who missed most of last season because of arm problems.
At first glance it looks like the Red Sox were picking up bodies off of the scrap heap at a bargain price. The kind of moves a low budget, flailing organization makes in order to try and lend some "credibility" and name recognition to its team. But the Red Sox aren't exactly a low budget, floundering organization. Put these guys on an already well built team, and they suddenly become low risk, very high reward commodities that could pay huge dividends now and in the future.
Here's a rundown of what each could bring to the table for the Sox:
1) Brad Penny: Despite his troubles last season, Penny has been, at times, a dominant starting pitcher, winning 16 games in both 2006 and 2007 for the Dodgers. And as an added bonus, he was one of the young starting pitchers that helped the Marlins beat the Yankees in the 2003 World Series. If he can recover from his injury and get back to where he was in '06 and '07 he slots in as an extremely dangerous number 4 starter for the Red Sox. He's only 30 years old and there is little reason to believe that he can't bounce back, and if he does, it may allow Epstein to trade one of his young starting pitchers for a good starting catcher, which the Sox desperately need now that Jason Varitek is finished in Beantown.
2) Rocco Baldelli: Baldelli effectively becomes the Red Sox 4th outfielder. Early in his career with the Rays, Baldelli was being touted as one of the next great stars of baseball. He was drawing comparisons to Joe DiMaggio, though that may have been due in part to his name and ethnic background. Joking aside though, the kid could play. He was a frightening blend of power and speed. His average always hovering around .300. David Wright comes to mind when you think of comparable numbers.
Then the injuries began. He simply couldn't stay healthy. When he was diagnosed with the mitochondrial disorder it looked as if his career might be over. He worked hard though to get healthy again, and was used delicately in the Rays stretch run this year, showing some of the same potential he had on display at the beginning of his career.
Now the Red Sox will use him in that same delicate manner. He will be there to spell one of the 3 starting outfielders and can be a great player off of the bench. If he is able to stay healthy he becomes an excellent back-up who would be a starter on any other team. And if he isn't able to stay healthy, well, no matter, he wasn't one of the 3 starters anyway.
3) Takashi Saito: He may be the most under-the-radar of the 4 of them. You can immediately slot him into the 8th inning in front of Jonathan Papelbon. He will share that inning with lefty specialist Hideki Okajima. In doing so they will relieve Saito of the heavy workload of a closer and be able to use him as a dominant 8th inning option. Even in a season in which he had arm problems, Saito was able to put up a 2.49 ERA and save 18 games. This could turn out to be a scary good move for the Red Sox.
4) John Smoltz: Smoltz seems to be the biggest question mark. We all know his track record, but last year he was only able to make 5 starts before he had to pack it in for the season because of major arm trouble. This is the second time in his career that Smoltz has had to deal with a serious arm problem. He turns 42 this year and one has to wonder how much he has left. But you can never question Smoltz's abilities though. If he is able to regain even a modicum of the success he has had over his illustrious career he can be a dominant #5 option in the starting rotation, or even become another excellent set-up man for Papelbon. Whether he can get completely healthy remains to be seen, but with all the pieces that the Sox already have in place, this is a very low risk signing.
So kudos to you Theo. You have shown once again why you are one of the best GM's in baseball.....and now that I've said that, I think I need to take a shower.
Tuesday, January 13, 2009
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
We're Talkin' Football
As we say good-bye to the first round of playoff castaways and near the end of another controversial (if not exciting) bowl season, I wanted to share some thoughts.
Raise your hand if you were even just a little upset that the Indianapolis Colts never even touched the football in their overtime loss to the Chargers. I'm pretty sure I've made my feelings clear on this, but in case you've forgotten....IT'S THE DUMBEST RULE IN ALL OF SPORTS!!!!
There NEEDS to be an equanimity of opportunity. An entire team's season was just ended because of a coin toss. The Colts (whose QB just happened to be the league MVP) never even got a chance to play on offense. What a shame. Nothing against the Chargers. They may be the best 8-8 team ever, but you have to feel bad that Peyton didn't even get a chance to do his thing in the OT.
I had a discussion with my dad about this rule and we both had a similar idea on how to solve it. Credit to fellow sports enthusiast Bob Dealy who reminded me that there are 3 phases to the game and that the college system of OT leaves out Special Teams. Please share your thoughts on this solution:
The coin toss decides who gets the ball to start the OT, just as it does now. If the team who gets the ball first does not score and has to punt, or turns the ball over -- then we play a normal, sudden death overtime. However, if the teams who has the ball first scores, they then have to kick off to the other team. The other team now has to match or best the first team. If at any point they turn the ball over, whether it be on downs, fumble of interception, the game is over.
If Team A starts with the ball and kicks a field goal and Team B scores a touchdown on their possession, Team B wins. If Team B kicks a field goal and matches Team A, then we continue in this fashion.
I am calling it the Extra Innings Rule. Like in baseball, the team who hits in the top half of the inning has a chance to score. The team who hits in the bottom half then has to do the same or better.
Other Playoff Curiosities:
There has been a lot of screaming and yelling over the past few days about regular season records and how teams are seeded in the playoffs. The venom here has been primarily directed at the 8-8 Chargers hosting the 12-4 Colts and the Giants facing the 9-6-1 Eagles instead of the 9-7 Cardinals.
This argument is pretty simple. You have to give credit to the team that wins their division. Just because their record is not as good as some other teams that might not even make the playoffs, you cannot discount the fact that you won your division. This year is odd because the Cardinals and the Chargers both won with mediocre records in extremely weak divisions. However, what if you have a division where all 4 teams are incredibly well balanced? Let's say each team goes 1-1 against their division opponents. Now everyone stands at 3-3. They also all have an equally tough non-divisional schedule and the best team in the division finishes up 9-7, while the last place team is 8-8. By winning that tough division, they have earned the right to host a playoff game.
Using this same argument we can immediately shoot down the complaints from certain Giants' fans (and I am not among these complainers) that the G-Men should be playing the Cardinals this week instead of the Eagles. Giants fans are simply upset because the Eagles are a hot team right now and managed to barely hold on for a win against the Giants in the regular season (mind you that game was played days after the Plaxico Burress incident and the team had already solidified a playoff spot the previous week by improving their record to 10-1). If the shoe were on the other foot and the 9-7 Cardinals were the hot team going into this round of the playoffs, Giants fans would be saying, "Whew, it's a good thing the rule states that we play the lowest seed." Every fan wants the rules to be convenient for their team. Simply put, the Giants play the lowest seed; which right now is the Eagles. The Cardinals and the Chargers have earned their places in the post-season by winning their division.
Finally, some College Football Thoughts:
I think ESPN needs to tone down the over-coverage of certain players' parents. In both the NU-Mizzou game and the Texas-OSU game, it seemed that after every play that Texas and Mizzou played on offense, ESPN showed a picture of the quarterback's parents and girlfriend. You want to show them after big plays, fine, but enough is enough! And don't the Wildcats and Buckeyes have parents too? I'm pretty sure CJ Bacher (NU quarterback) has parents. In fact I met them on my way to a game when I was living in Chicago. They're lovely people. I would have liked to have seen how they reacted when their son threw a 45-yard TD pass in the 2nd half of the Alamo Bowl.
My last point of the day is probably a touchy subject, but one I feel necessary to bring up. I think it might be time to start telling players to ease up on the religious talk in post-game interviews. Hearing what Colt McCoy (Texas QB) had to say after the game last night, I felt it was time to speak up. This has nothing to with my own religious beliefs, I just feel that this kind of speech is out of place at the end of a football game -- comments like, "I'd like to thank Jesus, our Lord and Savior, for giving me the strength to throw those passes like I did today." or, "God was on our side today. God gave me the will to catch that ball that helped us win the game." Again, it's not that I have a problem with their religious beliefs, but with all the horrible things going on in the world today, don't you think God and Jesus have more important things to worry about than a college bowl game? And besides Colt, what if God is an Oklahoma fan?
And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Raise your hand if you were even just a little upset that the Indianapolis Colts never even touched the football in their overtime loss to the Chargers. I'm pretty sure I've made my feelings clear on this, but in case you've forgotten....IT'S THE DUMBEST RULE IN ALL OF SPORTS!!!!
There NEEDS to be an equanimity of opportunity. An entire team's season was just ended because of a coin toss. The Colts (whose QB just happened to be the league MVP) never even got a chance to play on offense. What a shame. Nothing against the Chargers. They may be the best 8-8 team ever, but you have to feel bad that Peyton didn't even get a chance to do his thing in the OT.
I had a discussion with my dad about this rule and we both had a similar idea on how to solve it. Credit to fellow sports enthusiast Bob Dealy who reminded me that there are 3 phases to the game and that the college system of OT leaves out Special Teams. Please share your thoughts on this solution:
The coin toss decides who gets the ball to start the OT, just as it does now. If the team who gets the ball first does not score and has to punt, or turns the ball over -- then we play a normal, sudden death overtime. However, if the teams who has the ball first scores, they then have to kick off to the other team. The other team now has to match or best the first team. If at any point they turn the ball over, whether it be on downs, fumble of interception, the game is over.
If Team A starts with the ball and kicks a field goal and Team B scores a touchdown on their possession, Team B wins. If Team B kicks a field goal and matches Team A, then we continue in this fashion.
I am calling it the Extra Innings Rule. Like in baseball, the team who hits in the top half of the inning has a chance to score. The team who hits in the bottom half then has to do the same or better.
Other Playoff Curiosities:
There has been a lot of screaming and yelling over the past few days about regular season records and how teams are seeded in the playoffs. The venom here has been primarily directed at the 8-8 Chargers hosting the 12-4 Colts and the Giants facing the 9-6-1 Eagles instead of the 9-7 Cardinals.
This argument is pretty simple. You have to give credit to the team that wins their division. Just because their record is not as good as some other teams that might not even make the playoffs, you cannot discount the fact that you won your division. This year is odd because the Cardinals and the Chargers both won with mediocre records in extremely weak divisions. However, what if you have a division where all 4 teams are incredibly well balanced? Let's say each team goes 1-1 against their division opponents. Now everyone stands at 3-3. They also all have an equally tough non-divisional schedule and the best team in the division finishes up 9-7, while the last place team is 8-8. By winning that tough division, they have earned the right to host a playoff game.
Using this same argument we can immediately shoot down the complaints from certain Giants' fans (and I am not among these complainers) that the G-Men should be playing the Cardinals this week instead of the Eagles. Giants fans are simply upset because the Eagles are a hot team right now and managed to barely hold on for a win against the Giants in the regular season (mind you that game was played days after the Plaxico Burress incident and the team had already solidified a playoff spot the previous week by improving their record to 10-1). If the shoe were on the other foot and the 9-7 Cardinals were the hot team going into this round of the playoffs, Giants fans would be saying, "Whew, it's a good thing the rule states that we play the lowest seed." Every fan wants the rules to be convenient for their team. Simply put, the Giants play the lowest seed; which right now is the Eagles. The Cardinals and the Chargers have earned their places in the post-season by winning their division.
Finally, some College Football Thoughts:
I think ESPN needs to tone down the over-coverage of certain players' parents. In both the NU-Mizzou game and the Texas-OSU game, it seemed that after every play that Texas and Mizzou played on offense, ESPN showed a picture of the quarterback's parents and girlfriend. You want to show them after big plays, fine, but enough is enough! And don't the Wildcats and Buckeyes have parents too? I'm pretty sure CJ Bacher (NU quarterback) has parents. In fact I met them on my way to a game when I was living in Chicago. They're lovely people. I would have liked to have seen how they reacted when their son threw a 45-yard TD pass in the 2nd half of the Alamo Bowl.
My last point of the day is probably a touchy subject, but one I feel necessary to bring up. I think it might be time to start telling players to ease up on the religious talk in post-game interviews. Hearing what Colt McCoy (Texas QB) had to say after the game last night, I felt it was time to speak up. This has nothing to with my own religious beliefs, I just feel that this kind of speech is out of place at the end of a football game -- comments like, "I'd like to thank Jesus, our Lord and Savior, for giving me the strength to throw those passes like I did today." or, "God was on our side today. God gave me the will to catch that ball that helped us win the game." Again, it's not that I have a problem with their religious beliefs, but with all the horrible things going on in the world today, don't you think God and Jesus have more important things to worry about than a college bowl game? And besides Colt, what if God is an Oklahoma fan?
And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Friday, January 2, 2009
20-20 Hindsight
First off, I wanted to wish everyone a very happy new year!
With the NFL playoffs starting this weekend some fans are hoping their teams can become last year's Giants, while other fans are left wondering what went wrong? NY Jets fans seem to be doing a lot of that these days, and a lot of them are answering that question with two words: Brett Favre.
Isn't 20-20 hindsight a beautiful thing?
Before this season started Jets fans were screaming about getting Brett Favre. There was no way they could go into the season with Chad Pennington as their starting QB. Pennington is washed up, he can't throw the ball downfield, he can't stay healthy, etc. So Mike Tannenbaum listened to the fans, went out and got the future hall of fame quarterback, and said good bye to the aforementioned Pennington. Pennington signed with the hapless Dolphins and the Jets stood poised to make a big post-season run with Favre at the helm.
Isn't 20-20 hindsight a beautiful thing?
If you asked ANY Jets fan right now who they would rather have as their starting QB, they would answer Chad Pennington. "How could we let him go? Look what he did with the Dolphins this year. We missed the playoffs with a washed up QB. What a stupid move it was."
I bet they wouldn't have been saying this when the Jets stood at 8-3 after they beat the undefeated Titans and rival Patriots in consecutive weeks. The Favre move looked like a stroke of genius at that point. A mere 5 weeks later and it looks like the bonehead move of the year.
Isn't 20-20 hindsight a beautiful thing?
This is what makes sports so interesting and so exciting. Who would have thought that an injury-prone, much-maligned quarterback would lead a team that went 1-15 in the previous season to a first place finish in a division that boasted a team who last year was the first team ever to go 16-0. Yes, I know that the Pats lost Tom Brady for the season in the first game, but that is the beauty of sports. No season is ever decided on paper. Nothing is ever a certainty.
I think the Jets GM made the right decision to bring in Favre. It was the LOGICAL decision. Pennington had run his course in NY. They needed something new. Which is why I get a kick out of hearing fans (in any sport) complain at the end of the season "How could we have traded this guy?" or "What were we thinking signing this guy?"
The simple answer: because you just don't know what will happen. GM's have to make decisions based on past performance, team goals, instinct, and so many other factors. If it works they look like geniuses, and if it doesn't, they look for new jobs.
20-20 hindsight is a beautiful thing.....if you're a fan trying to explain what went wrong.
Enjoy the NFL playoffs everyone!
Oh and um, if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
With the NFL playoffs starting this weekend some fans are hoping their teams can become last year's Giants, while other fans are left wondering what went wrong? NY Jets fans seem to be doing a lot of that these days, and a lot of them are answering that question with two words: Brett Favre.
Isn't 20-20 hindsight a beautiful thing?
Before this season started Jets fans were screaming about getting Brett Favre. There was no way they could go into the season with Chad Pennington as their starting QB. Pennington is washed up, he can't throw the ball downfield, he can't stay healthy, etc. So Mike Tannenbaum listened to the fans, went out and got the future hall of fame quarterback, and said good bye to the aforementioned Pennington. Pennington signed with the hapless Dolphins and the Jets stood poised to make a big post-season run with Favre at the helm.
Isn't 20-20 hindsight a beautiful thing?
If you asked ANY Jets fan right now who they would rather have as their starting QB, they would answer Chad Pennington. "How could we let him go? Look what he did with the Dolphins this year. We missed the playoffs with a washed up QB. What a stupid move it was."
I bet they wouldn't have been saying this when the Jets stood at 8-3 after they beat the undefeated Titans and rival Patriots in consecutive weeks. The Favre move looked like a stroke of genius at that point. A mere 5 weeks later and it looks like the bonehead move of the year.
Isn't 20-20 hindsight a beautiful thing?
This is what makes sports so interesting and so exciting. Who would have thought that an injury-prone, much-maligned quarterback would lead a team that went 1-15 in the previous season to a first place finish in a division that boasted a team who last year was the first team ever to go 16-0. Yes, I know that the Pats lost Tom Brady for the season in the first game, but that is the beauty of sports. No season is ever decided on paper. Nothing is ever a certainty.
I think the Jets GM made the right decision to bring in Favre. It was the LOGICAL decision. Pennington had run his course in NY. They needed something new. Which is why I get a kick out of hearing fans (in any sport) complain at the end of the season "How could we have traded this guy?" or "What were we thinking signing this guy?"
The simple answer: because you just don't know what will happen. GM's have to make decisions based on past performance, team goals, instinct, and so many other factors. If it works they look like geniuses, and if it doesn't, they look for new jobs.
20-20 hindsight is a beautiful thing.....if you're a fan trying to explain what went wrong.
Enjoy the NFL playoffs everyone!
Oh and um, if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
Arguing With Myself: Making Sense of the Mark Teixera Signing
OK, enough, we get it: the Yankees are bullies, don't they know that the economy stinks right now, it's totally unfair, the Yankees are going to buy another World Series.
I'll admit, it's getting tougher and tougher to defend the Yankees as this off-season shopping spree goes on, but I'm going to try.
First off, concerning my post on Mark Teixera last week, there is a big part of me that still wishes he had gone to his hometown Orioles. Am I happy to see him wearing pinstripes? Of course. He is a hard-working, exciting ballplayer; the kind of player I think young kids should emulate. But like I said last week, it would have been a good story had he taken less money and gone to his hometown team.
Next, I am sick and tired (and it's only been one day) of reading articles that say Teixera is despicable and that all he cares about is the money. How dare these people? He has earned the right to sign wherever he wants and for how much he wants after putting up excellent numbers and playing stellar defense over his career. It is not the player's fault that teams are throwing ridiculous sums of money at him.
Now, here's where it gets tough. I tried to argue a few weeks ago that the Yankees spending a ton of money on a player is simply the way things are. They have more money than any other team, and they intend on spending it. The best ways I could defend this are a) they sometimes makes very poor decisions on who they choose to throw money at, and b) they have not won a world series this decade despite all the money they have spent. However, with the team now holding the 4 highest paid players in all of baseball, and committing almost a half a billion dollars to 3 players in this off-season I am finding it difficult to continue to justify my reasons.
Nothing has really changed in my argument. This is simply how things are, but there does seem to be a sense of unfairness to it all when the top 3 free agents all go to the same team in the matter of a week. It just doesn't feel right.
Despite my uneasy feeling though, I still think people should stop with this ridiculous chorus of "The Yankees bought the World Series." Just because they're the favorites now doesn't mean they're going to win it all next October. This statement pings of jealousy. "Oh, the Yankees only won this year because they bought all the best players. They didn't really win the World Series." Oh, really? Then let's not even play the next season. Let's just give the Yankees the trophy now and call it a day. And I didn't hear these people chirping when the Yankees came in third last year. There weren't too many chants of "Oh, they bought 3rd place this year." This absolutely absurd whining needs to stop NOW.
Ok, deep breaths Michael. I digress....
Baseball executives are split on how they feel about all these signings. Some say that it's bad for baseball and that it's impossible for other teams to survive in this climate. Others, like Toronto GM J.P. Ricciardi, said that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs are great for baseball. This coming from a GM who shares a division with the Yanks and Red Sox. He commented this morning on WFAN in NY that these teams always sell out stadiums when they are on the road, they bring lots of attention and excitement to the sport, they make other teams really work hard at developing good ball players and building great teams, and he said he doesn't hear anyone complaining when the Yankees pay their big luxury tax to the other teams.
Clearly this is a divisive issue among fans and MLB personnel alike. I still defend my Yankees, but I have to admit, I don't do it with that same sense of righteousness that I did one week ago.
But I still don't want to hear anyone complaining that they bought the World Series if they win it all in '09. Someday soon, the rules might change when it comes to player contracts and salary caps, but until that day comes, the way the Yankees do business is just how things are.
And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
I'll admit, it's getting tougher and tougher to defend the Yankees as this off-season shopping spree goes on, but I'm going to try.
First off, concerning my post on Mark Teixera last week, there is a big part of me that still wishes he had gone to his hometown Orioles. Am I happy to see him wearing pinstripes? Of course. He is a hard-working, exciting ballplayer; the kind of player I think young kids should emulate. But like I said last week, it would have been a good story had he taken less money and gone to his hometown team.
Next, I am sick and tired (and it's only been one day) of reading articles that say Teixera is despicable and that all he cares about is the money. How dare these people? He has earned the right to sign wherever he wants and for how much he wants after putting up excellent numbers and playing stellar defense over his career. It is not the player's fault that teams are throwing ridiculous sums of money at him.
Now, here's where it gets tough. I tried to argue a few weeks ago that the Yankees spending a ton of money on a player is simply the way things are. They have more money than any other team, and they intend on spending it. The best ways I could defend this are a) they sometimes makes very poor decisions on who they choose to throw money at, and b) they have not won a world series this decade despite all the money they have spent. However, with the team now holding the 4 highest paid players in all of baseball, and committing almost a half a billion dollars to 3 players in this off-season I am finding it difficult to continue to justify my reasons.
Nothing has really changed in my argument. This is simply how things are, but there does seem to be a sense of unfairness to it all when the top 3 free agents all go to the same team in the matter of a week. It just doesn't feel right.
Despite my uneasy feeling though, I still think people should stop with this ridiculous chorus of "The Yankees bought the World Series." Just because they're the favorites now doesn't mean they're going to win it all next October. This statement pings of jealousy. "Oh, the Yankees only won this year because they bought all the best players. They didn't really win the World Series." Oh, really? Then let's not even play the next season. Let's just give the Yankees the trophy now and call it a day. And I didn't hear these people chirping when the Yankees came in third last year. There weren't too many chants of "Oh, they bought 3rd place this year." This absolutely absurd whining needs to stop NOW.
Ok, deep breaths Michael. I digress....
Baseball executives are split on how they feel about all these signings. Some say that it's bad for baseball and that it's impossible for other teams to survive in this climate. Others, like Toronto GM J.P. Ricciardi, said that teams like the Yankees, Red Sox, and Cubs are great for baseball. This coming from a GM who shares a division with the Yanks and Red Sox. He commented this morning on WFAN in NY that these teams always sell out stadiums when they are on the road, they bring lots of attention and excitement to the sport, they make other teams really work hard at developing good ball players and building great teams, and he said he doesn't hear anyone complaining when the Yankees pay their big luxury tax to the other teams.
Clearly this is a divisive issue among fans and MLB personnel alike. I still defend my Yankees, but I have to admit, I don't do it with that same sense of righteousness that I did one week ago.
But I still don't want to hear anyone complaining that they bought the World Series if they win it all in '09. Someday soon, the rules might change when it comes to player contracts and salary caps, but until that day comes, the way the Yankees do business is just how things are.
And if you disagree....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Monday, December 22, 2008
Heads or Tails
What a game last night!! Giants beat the Panthers in OT 34-28 for homefield advantage in the playoffs. It was a dramatic, intense, back and forth, electrifying game, and all I can say is this: thank god both teams touched the ball in overtime. As I sat watching the game as regulation time expired all I could think about was how this game could be determined by the flip of a coin.
I mean, seriously, could there be a dumber rule in all of sports? I know that not every overtime game is won on that first possession, but the fact that a team can win a game without the other team even touching the ball is possibly the stupidest concept ever created. I simply do not understand the rationale behind this. Two teams battle it out for 4 quarters. Guys have played their butts off fighting for every last yard and the game is now potentially decided by whether a shiny piece of metal comes up one way or the other? Ridiculous.
But rather than continue to complain, I will offer my 2 solutions.
1) No Sudden Death Overtime:
This one is pretty self explanatory.
Right now, all you have to do to win the game is kick a field goal. Drive your team within the other team's 35 yard line and you've got a pretty good chance of winning the game. Teams aren't compelled to go for the end zone. They just want to get it close enough so their place-kicker can send everyone home. And field goals aren't exactly difficult to come by. Even in low-scoring affairs, you're bound to see at least a few field goals kicked.
So just play the Overtime as if it were the 5th quarter. If the game is still tied at the end of the 15 minutes....so be it, the game ends in a tie.
I don't love this solution because ties are more likely than they are in the current format, and no one likes to see a game end in a tie. Which is why I would like to see my next solution implemented....
2) Do it Like the College Kids (With a slight modification):
The NCAA really got it right when it comes to OT. There is nothing more exciting than how college football determines a winner in overtime. Each team gets the ball 1st and 10 at the opponent's 25 yard line. The team with the ball first tries to score, then the other team tries to match or out-do what the first team did, and you repeat the process until there is a winner. There is an emphasis on both offense and defense. There is drama and strategy. How exciting is it when that first team is faced with a 4th and 1 and needs to decide whether to settle for a field goal, or go for it and risk not getting any points at all?
What I really like most about this system though, is the equanimity of opportunity. Both teams are guaranteed a shot at the ball, and both the offense and the defense have to do their jobs.
Here is my one small tweak to what they do in college. In the NCAA, the ball is placed on the 25 yard line. That means if the offense were to go absolutely nowhere in their first 3 downs, they could take a shot at a 42 yard field goal, which in college is definitely not a gimme. In the NFL however, a 42 yarder is a very make-able kick. So I suggest moving the ball back to the 35 yard line. This would set up a potential 52 yarder if the team goes 0 yards in their 3 plays. Definitely not an automatic kick, but still make-able. All the same rules apply from there.
I think it would make the overtime much more exciting, and never again would you have to hear someone say, "We got screwed! We never even touched the ball in overtime!!" And all because of a flip of a coin.
And if you disagree....go ahead an tell me I'm wrong.
I mean, seriously, could there be a dumber rule in all of sports? I know that not every overtime game is won on that first possession, but the fact that a team can win a game without the other team even touching the ball is possibly the stupidest concept ever created. I simply do not understand the rationale behind this. Two teams battle it out for 4 quarters. Guys have played their butts off fighting for every last yard and the game is now potentially decided by whether a shiny piece of metal comes up one way or the other? Ridiculous.
But rather than continue to complain, I will offer my 2 solutions.
1) No Sudden Death Overtime:
This one is pretty self explanatory.
Right now, all you have to do to win the game is kick a field goal. Drive your team within the other team's 35 yard line and you've got a pretty good chance of winning the game. Teams aren't compelled to go for the end zone. They just want to get it close enough so their place-kicker can send everyone home. And field goals aren't exactly difficult to come by. Even in low-scoring affairs, you're bound to see at least a few field goals kicked.
So just play the Overtime as if it were the 5th quarter. If the game is still tied at the end of the 15 minutes....so be it, the game ends in a tie.
I don't love this solution because ties are more likely than they are in the current format, and no one likes to see a game end in a tie. Which is why I would like to see my next solution implemented....
2) Do it Like the College Kids (With a slight modification):
The NCAA really got it right when it comes to OT. There is nothing more exciting than how college football determines a winner in overtime. Each team gets the ball 1st and 10 at the opponent's 25 yard line. The team with the ball first tries to score, then the other team tries to match or out-do what the first team did, and you repeat the process until there is a winner. There is an emphasis on both offense and defense. There is drama and strategy. How exciting is it when that first team is faced with a 4th and 1 and needs to decide whether to settle for a field goal, or go for it and risk not getting any points at all?
What I really like most about this system though, is the equanimity of opportunity. Both teams are guaranteed a shot at the ball, and both the offense and the defense have to do their jobs.
Here is my one small tweak to what they do in college. In the NCAA, the ball is placed on the 25 yard line. That means if the offense were to go absolutely nowhere in their first 3 downs, they could take a shot at a 42 yard field goal, which in college is definitely not a gimme. In the NFL however, a 42 yarder is a very make-able kick. So I suggest moving the ball back to the 35 yard line. This would set up a potential 52 yarder if the team goes 0 yards in their 3 plays. Definitely not an automatic kick, but still make-able. All the same rules apply from there.
I think it would make the overtime much more exciting, and never again would you have to hear someone say, "We got screwed! We never even touched the ball in overtime!!" And all because of a flip of a coin.
And if you disagree....go ahead an tell me I'm wrong.
Wednesday, December 17, 2008
Deep In the Heart of Tex
I was a little disappointed to read today that the Baltimore Orioles have fallen behind in the Mark Teixera sweepstakes. People who know me may ask why I care considering that I'm a Yankee fan. And if you think it's because I'm worried he'll go to the Red Sox, you're mostly wrong. Sure, I don't want to see him in Boston, but the reason why I'm sad that he's likely not going to the Orioles is because it has been well documented that the Orioles are Mark Teixera's hometown team.
Before I go any further I will readily admit all of these issues:
1) Teixera has the right to sign anywhere he wants
2) He has earned the right to a large contract because of his stellar play
3) He has the right to choose a team that is already a contender
I think part of me wants to see him go to his hometown team because so many of us who played baseball growing up dreamed of playing for our favorite team and hitting the winning home run that won our team the world series. There is something very romantic about putting on the uniform of your childhood heroes (and getting paid handsomely to do it -- though I guarantee there are those of us that would do it for free). So now we see a major leaguer with a chance to do just that. And not only play for his hometown team, he could be the savior of his hometown team that has struggled so mightily in the last few years, and is in desperate need of that major superstar that will help them back on the path to contendership.
You know that the fans of Baltimore are praying that this guy will give them a "hometown discount." It's so hard to bring a superstar to a floundering club, especially if they feel no special tie to the organization, and it's particularly frustrating for the fans. And not only will they lose out on Teixera, but they will in a way lose out on the other free agents who might have signed in Baltimore if they see a superstar like Teixera signing there. A player like Tex automatically gives the organization more credibility.
Believe me, as an Islander fan I understand this. Right now, no big name player wants to play for the Islanders. They are a very bad team that is in serious rebuilding mode. They play in an old building with a very localized fan base. When the hockey off-season rolls around, I can guarantee you that the major free agents aren't going to have the Islanders at the top of their list....however, if there was a great player who grew up on Long Island, rooting for the Islanders, and decided to come to the organization as free agent, it would help gain the team a measure of respect, and maybe we could lure some other good players, instead of the leftovers that nobody else wants (I really hope this blog reaches Chris Higgins).
In a sports world right now where everyone wants to play for the big market teams, or go to the highest bidder, it would be nice to see a guy go back to his roots. Who said you can't go home?
Tex has every right in the world to sign where he wants and take whatever contract he wants, but the romantic in me would like to see him go play for the hometown team, and be the hero that I'm sure he dreamed of being as a kid.
And if you disagree...go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Before I go any further I will readily admit all of these issues:
1) Teixera has the right to sign anywhere he wants
2) He has earned the right to a large contract because of his stellar play
3) He has the right to choose a team that is already a contender
I think part of me wants to see him go to his hometown team because so many of us who played baseball growing up dreamed of playing for our favorite team and hitting the winning home run that won our team the world series. There is something very romantic about putting on the uniform of your childhood heroes (and getting paid handsomely to do it -- though I guarantee there are those of us that would do it for free). So now we see a major leaguer with a chance to do just that. And not only play for his hometown team, he could be the savior of his hometown team that has struggled so mightily in the last few years, and is in desperate need of that major superstar that will help them back on the path to contendership.
You know that the fans of Baltimore are praying that this guy will give them a "hometown discount." It's so hard to bring a superstar to a floundering club, especially if they feel no special tie to the organization, and it's particularly frustrating for the fans. And not only will they lose out on Teixera, but they will in a way lose out on the other free agents who might have signed in Baltimore if they see a superstar like Teixera signing there. A player like Tex automatically gives the organization more credibility.
Believe me, as an Islander fan I understand this. Right now, no big name player wants to play for the Islanders. They are a very bad team that is in serious rebuilding mode. They play in an old building with a very localized fan base. When the hockey off-season rolls around, I can guarantee you that the major free agents aren't going to have the Islanders at the top of their list....however, if there was a great player who grew up on Long Island, rooting for the Islanders, and decided to come to the organization as free agent, it would help gain the team a measure of respect, and maybe we could lure some other good players, instead of the leftovers that nobody else wants (I really hope this blog reaches Chris Higgins).
In a sports world right now where everyone wants to play for the big market teams, or go to the highest bidder, it would be nice to see a guy go back to his roots. Who said you can't go home?
Tex has every right in the world to sign where he wants and take whatever contract he wants, but the romantic in me would like to see him go play for the hometown team, and be the hero that I'm sure he dreamed of being as a kid.
And if you disagree...go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Oh Man-ny
Here is an image I never thought I'd see, let alone talked about....Manny Ramirez in Yankee Pinstripes. Yet there are several sources this morning claiming that the Yankees are showing some legitimate interest in going after this egocentric malcontent.
I won't deny that acquiring Manny would essentially assure the Yankees a return to the post-season, and potentially even make them the favorites to win it all, but it just seems so wrong.
Never mind the fact that he was a Yankee killer and persona non grata when he came to play in Yankee Stadium. What bothers me about Manny is the way he plays the game and all that "Manny being Manny" nonsense. He disrespects the game. Last year when he refused to run out a potential double-play ball in a key situation in a game when he was still playing for the Red Sox speaks volumes. When he was totally fed up with playing in Boston and demanded a trade, he feigned an injury and insisted that he would not play. Unless he is %100 happy, Manny won't be Manny on the field.
I can't justify rooting for this guy. Not to mention I don't think he should be rewarded with another huge contract after the way he forced the hand of the Red Sox last year with his contract situation. I also happen to think that if the Yanks sign him -- considering their other recent signings -- that it will be overkill. You'll start to see talk of the "Evil Empire" coming back.
I suppose if they sign him, I'll cheer when he hits a home run, or makes a nice catch, or drives in a winning run, but only because of the interlocking NY on his uniform and cap, and not because of the man wearing them.
If nothing else it will make me pine for the days when hard-nosed team players like Scott Brosius, Tino Martinez, and my favorite, Paul O'Neill, were wearing the pinstripes and winning championships.
The Yanks don't need Manny's antics, his attitude, his mercurial temperament and they sure as hell don't need him to win it all.
And if you disagree with me....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
I won't deny that acquiring Manny would essentially assure the Yankees a return to the post-season, and potentially even make them the favorites to win it all, but it just seems so wrong.
Never mind the fact that he was a Yankee killer and persona non grata when he came to play in Yankee Stadium. What bothers me about Manny is the way he plays the game and all that "Manny being Manny" nonsense. He disrespects the game. Last year when he refused to run out a potential double-play ball in a key situation in a game when he was still playing for the Red Sox speaks volumes. When he was totally fed up with playing in Boston and demanded a trade, he feigned an injury and insisted that he would not play. Unless he is %100 happy, Manny won't be Manny on the field.
I can't justify rooting for this guy. Not to mention I don't think he should be rewarded with another huge contract after the way he forced the hand of the Red Sox last year with his contract situation. I also happen to think that if the Yanks sign him -- considering their other recent signings -- that it will be overkill. You'll start to see talk of the "Evil Empire" coming back.
I suppose if they sign him, I'll cheer when he hits a home run, or makes a nice catch, or drives in a winning run, but only because of the interlocking NY on his uniform and cap, and not because of the man wearing them.
If nothing else it will make me pine for the days when hard-nosed team players like Scott Brosius, Tino Martinez, and my favorite, Paul O'Neill, were wearing the pinstripes and winning championships.
The Yanks don't need Manny's antics, his attitude, his mercurial temperament and they sure as hell don't need him to win it all.
And if you disagree with me....go ahead and tell me I'm wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
